search_docs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden: it discloses the ranking method (BM25), the returned fields (path, title, preview, score), and the important connection/auth constraint. It omits index freshness, result limits, and failure behavior for empty matches, so it is adequate but not rich.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then return shape, then the connection constraint. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be spelled out, and the description nevertheless summarizes them. Purpose, method, and connection requirement are all present; the only real gap is parameter semantics for a two-parameter tool.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It never explains that 'query' is the search terms or that 'top_k' caps the number of returned results (default 5); only BM25 ranking is hinted at.

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?

States a specific verb (Search) and resource (Houdini documentation) plus the mechanism (BM25) and offline/connection-free scope. Clear on its own, but it never distinguishes itself from the get_doc sibling that also likely serves documentation.

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 phrase 'Does NOT require a Houdini connection' implies it can run when a live session is unavailable, which is useful routing context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs get_doc guidance or any exclusion criteria, so usage is only implied.

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