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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that the tool returns metadata, not full content, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it omits details like default limit behavior or potential need for at least one filter, but these are partially covered by the schema.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every word adds value. The first sentence states purpose and filters; the second explains return type and directs to an alternative. No waste or redundancy.

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 absence of an output schema and annotations, the description could do more to explain the structure of the returned metadata or the behavior when no filters are provided. It points to get_document but doesn't specify how results are connected (e.g., document ID). This leaves gaps for an agent needing to invoke get_document after searching.

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 lists 'category, tags, project, or free-text query' as filters, which maps to some parameters but omits team_name and limit. It adds no new semantic meaning beyond the schema, so a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Search documents in the organization's knowledge base,' using a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling get_document by noting it returns metadata, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance: 'Returns document metadata — use get_document to read the full content.' This directly tells the agent when to use this tool (for search/metadata) and when to use an alternative (for full content). This is a clear when/alternative directive.

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