search_docs

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries behavioral disclosure fully. It states the search returns 'ranked snippets with their source URLs' and emphasizes the data is 'curated, source-verified' and 'current, accurate', which is sufficient for a read-only search tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two concise sentences: the first defines purpose and scope, the second gives usage guidance and return format. No wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a search tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers return type (ranked snippets with URLs) and context (curated docs, topics). It is complete for effective agent usage.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with good parameter descriptions. The description adds value by providing an example query ('streamable http transport auth') and explaining the optional topic filter with possible values, enhancing the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it searches curated docs for MCP servers and Claude agents, specifying the scope (MCP, Claude Agent SDK, Claude Code) and distinguishing from sibling tools like get_doc (full doc retrieval) and list_topics (topic listing).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly advises using this tool for current, accurate details instead of relying on memory, providing clear when-to-use guidance. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or directly name sibling alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.