Search internal docs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that this is a stand-in for a real Confluence-style API and what it searches, but it does not describe result format, query syntax, or limitations.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The core action and scope are front-loaded, and the stand-in note adds useful context without bloating the text.

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 single-parameter search tool, the description is mostly adequate, but with no output schema it should mention what the tool returns (e.g., matching document IDs or snippets). The lack of any return-value information leaves a meaningful gap for an agent deciding how to use the result.

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 coverage is 0% and the only parameter is 'query', which is just a string type. The description adds meaning by explaining this is full-text search over specific document categories, clarifying how the query parameter is used.

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 does full-text search over internal docs/wiki, with concrete content examples (style guide, runbooks, checklists). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_doc, which implies direct retrieval rather than search.

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 provides clear context: this is for searching internal documentation rather than managing tasks or products. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the search-over-documents framing makes the intended use obvious enough.

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