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

Annotations already establish that this is a safe, idempotent read, so the description's marginal value lies in its disclosure that calling with no arguments returns the newest uploads capped at 25, and that status=['pending','error'] represents a specific Incoming queue. It does not explain match/relevance semantics or fuller pagination behavior, but it adds real operational context beyond structured fields.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose before revealing alternate modes. No sentence is redundant, and the cap of 25 and the queue mapping are stated compactly.

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 4-parameter, optional-only read tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers the key call patterns: search, status filtering, and zero-argument listing. It could say more about sorting, result fields, or whether 25 is a hard cap, but nothing critical to correct invocation is missing.

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 the baseline is 3. The description goes slightly beyond the schema by assigning business meaning to the status values ('pending','error' is the Incoming queue) and by clarifying the no-argument listing behavior. It does not add new format or syntax detail for query, type, or company beyond what the schema already states.

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 a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('uploaded documents') and immediately names the concrete domain (receipts, invoices). It also distinguishes a second mode, listing by status or with no arguments, which a plain 'search' label would not convey. It does not explicitly contrast itself with nearby tools such as find_related_documents or get_document_links, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

It gives clear conditions for alternate modes: use status when there is no query, pending/error forms the Incoming queue, and no arguments lists newest uploads. It does not name sibling alternatives or say when to prefer find_related_documents or get_document_links instead, so it is strong but not fully complete.

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