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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the scope of searchable resources; it says nothing about result format, limits, or whether companyId restricts the corpus, so it adds limited value beyond the 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?

A single short, front-loaded sentence with no redundant phrasing. It is efficient, though its extreme terseness leaves little room for the missing guidance noted elsewhere.

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 should carry more weight: it does not explain what a result contains, how many results come back, or how the search corpus relates to the companyId parameter. For a search tool with 17 siblings, this leaves the agent under-informed.

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 only 50%: q is documented in the schema, but companyId has no description anywhere. The description mentions no parameters at all and does not compensate for the undocumented companyId, so an agent cannot tell whether it scopes the search to one company.

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 names a specific verb (fulltext search) and enumerates the searched resources (documents, invoices, suppliers), so the agent knows what this does. However, it does not distinguish itself from siblings like list_documents, list_suppliers, or get_document, which also surface those entities.

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?

There is no indication of when to prefer this fulltext search over the sibling list_* tools or get_document. Usage is only weakly implied by the word 'fulltext,' and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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