search_docs

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description reveals important behavioral traits: zero network access, BM25 ranking with stemming, result format including URL and section path, FTS5 syntax support, and the stored-index-only scope. This adds substantial context about what happens when calling the tool and what the output contains, with no contradiction to annotations.

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?

Four dense sentences, each earning its place: purpose and ranking, result format and follow-up, query syntax, and index caveat. The most important scoping constraints are front-loaded, and there is no fluff or repetition of schema content.

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 there is no output schema, the description properly explains what results contain (URL, heading path, snippet with highlighted matches) and how to get the full content. It also covers prerequisites (crawl_site), querying syntax, and scope limitations. The agent has enough context to invoke the tool correctly without missing behavioral details.

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?

The schema already describes all three parameters at 100% coverage, including the query syntax, limit bounds, and site_key usage. The description reiterates the FTS5 syntax but does not meaningfully extend parameter-level understanding beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter-heavy lifting.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Full-text search across all crawled documentation'. It further distinguishes the tool from siblings by stating it is ranked by relevance, works offline, and searches only the stored index, which clearly differentiates it from list_pages, get_page, and read_page.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: when you need to search crawled documentation. It also provides practical guidance by telling the agent to run crawl_site first for uncrawled sites and to follow up with read_page for the full page. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool in favor of a sibling like list_pages or get_page, so it falls just short of a 5.

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