search_documentation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses what is returned (markdown chunks with metadata) and the prerequisite ingest step. It doesn't specify read-only nature or rate/latency behavior, but for a search tool these are minor gaps.

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?

Front-loads the core operation and return value, then documents parameters cleanly. The Args section is well-structured and every line earns its place; slightly verbose but effectively so for a 0%-coverage schema.

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-value explanation is not strictly required, yet the description still summarizes the chunk format. Combined with full parameter documentation and the ingest prerequisite, an agent has everything needed to invoke this correctly.

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 this description must fully compensate. It documents all five parameters with meaning and examples: query (with sample), name/version filters, k range (1-20), and the mode enum semantics including the default's fusion behavior. This is exactly what's needed.

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 and resource (semantic search over indexed documentation) and describes the return unit (markdown chunks with source URL and heading path). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like add_documentation and list_sources.

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?

Explicitly names the precondition: 'Use add_documentation first if nothing is indexed yet,' which routes the agent to the right sibling. It provides clear context but doesn't cover the other alternatives (add_local_docs, get_ingest_status) or when-not-to-use scenarios.

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