search_documentation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the search is against 'cached' documentation, implying a local, read-only operation, but it does not elaborate on staleness, caching behavior, or any side effects. The word 'cached' adds some transparency, but the description remains minimal.

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 a single concise sentence with no unnecessary information. Every word earns its place, and the structure is immediately scannable.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, a short description might be adequate. However, the lack of query-format guidance and any usage context leaves gaps. It is adequate but could benefit from a note about what the query should contain or that the search is against a local cache.

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%, and the description contains no additional meaning about the 'query' parameter. It does not clarify what format the query should take (e.g., natural language, keyword, regex) or how to construct effective searches. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.

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 uses the specific verb 'Search' and identifies the resource as 'cached Biome documentation', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like biome_check, biome_lint, and biome_format. It leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 implies usage (searching documentation) but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives. Since the tool's purpose is self-evident from its name and description, it earns an implied-usage score rather than a lower one.

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