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 so thoroughly. It discloses backend differences (selfhost returns viewCount/lastViewedAt; gist returns null), pagination behavior (limit max 100 default 20, offset >= 0, hasMore in response), and search semantics (content_query searches full content on selfhost but only the opening excerpt on gist). This goes well beyond 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 a single dense sentence, packed with all necessary details. It front-loads the purpose and then covers parameters and backend quirks. Some might find it slightly run-on, but every phrase earns its place; a structured list could improve readability slightly, hence 4 rather than 5.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 5 parameters, this description is exceptionally complete. It explains return data (share URL, viewCount/lastViewedAt), pagination semantics (hasMore, offset+limit), backend variations, and all filters. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke and interpret the tool correctly.

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 has 5 properties, all with no descriptions, but the tool description explains each one: title_query (title substring), content_query (body text with backend caveat), status (active/revoked/expired), limit (max 100, default 20), offset (must be >= 0, used for pagination). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptive coverage.

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+resource: 'Find previously shared docs and their links.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools, which are all mutating operations (create, update, revoke, delete). It also clarifies the no-argument default behavior, reinforcing purpose.

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?

Usage context is clear: call with no arguments to list newest docs, or use filters (title_query, content_query, status, limit, offset) to narrow results. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the sibling set is all write/update/delete operations, making the read-only search role obvious. No exclusions are needed beyond that.

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