search_shared_docs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does disclose some useful behavioral detail (content_query behavior differs by deployment: selfhost full content vs gist opening excerpt). However, it does not mention auth needs, whether results are paginated, or what the response structure looks like beyond 'its share URL'. The read-only nature is implied not stated.

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?

Compact single-sentence guidance that packs significant value. Each clause conveys a distinct piece of information (listing behavior, each filter, edge cases). Slightly dense around the content_query deployment caveat, but efficient overall with no filler.

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 filtered-list tool with no output schema and no parameters required, the description is reasonably complete: it explains the no-args listing mode, each filter, and deployment-specific content search behavior. It lacks explicit mention of what happens on no results or pagination beyond limit, but these are modest gaps for a search tool of this simplicity.

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 0%, so the description must carry the semantic weight of all 4 parameters, and it does: title_query filters by title substring, content_query searches body text (with deployment-specific nuance), status filters active/revoked/expired, limit capped at 100. This meaningfully exceeds what the bare schema provides.

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?

Description states a specific verb+resource ('Find previously shared docs and their links') and includes the key behavioral detail that this is a read/search tool, distinguishing it clearly from sibling write tools (create, append, revoke, delete, etc.). The scope of what it returns (share URLs) is explicit.

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?

Clearly explains when to call with no arguments to list newest docs, and describes what each filter does (title_query, content_query, status, limit). While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or say 'use X instead', the sibling set is obvious from the filter verbs, and the no-args listing pattern is well described. Missing explicit exclusions for when to prefer, say, create_shared_doc over this.

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