search_docs

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: partial-result marking, disclosure of unmatched query terms, and an explicit explanation when a provider is not indexed. It does not address ranking depth or result-count behavior beyond max_results, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence and then the use cases, which is the right ordering. The middle clause about partial results, unnamed terms, and unindexed providers is dense and slightly repetitive, but each clause carries actionable information for interpreting results.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the work of explaining return semantics (most relevant chunks, partial flagging, diagnostic messages), which is exactly what an agent needs here. Remaining gaps are minor: how results are ranked and whether there is any result-count ceiling.

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 100%, so all three parameters are already documented in the schema, including query examples and the provider filter. The description only indirectly supports the 'provider' parameter via its note about unindexed providers and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Search football data provider documentation') and then enumerates the exact content types it retrieves (event types, qualifier IDs, endpoints, coordinate systems, data models, cross-provider mappings). That enumeration separates it cleanly from siblings like get_provider_docs and list_providers without needing to name them.

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?

"Use for finding event types, qualifier IDs, API endpoints..." gives clear positive context for when to invoke it, which is more than most search tools offer. It stops short of explicit when-not guidance or naming the alternative (e.g., get_provider_docs when the provider/topic is already known), so it misses the top band.

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