search_docs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently states that the tool downloads a zip, indexes markdown files, caches the index, and returns document previews. It does not mention network failure modes or cache invalidation, but the core side effects are clearly disclosed.

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?

The description is well-structured with a summary, Args, Returns, and Examples sections. Every section contributes useful information, and the core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence without unnecessary fluff.

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 tool with no annotations and moderate complexity, the description covers the full workflow, parameter semantics, defaults, return shape, and practical examples. The presence of an output schema covers the return format details, so nothing critical is missing for an agent 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?

Given 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: query as a search string, zip_url with a default and required URL format, and num_results as a maximum count. This adds substantial meaning beyond the raw schema types and defaults.

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 the tool searches documentation from a GitHub repository zip file, with a specific verb, resource, and workflow (download, index, return relevant documents). It implicitly differentiates from siblings like scrape_web and count_word_occurrences by focusing specifically on GitHub-hosted 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?

Usage is implied through examples and the default zip_url, showing when to call the tool directly. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over alternatives or any exclusions for edge cases like searching non-markdown documentation.

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