search_documents

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the search method (hybrid keyword + semantic), the scope (local document index), and the output shape (most relevant passages with file-and-page citations). It does not cover edge cases or performance characteristics, but it is reasonably transparent for a search tool.

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 consists of two concise sentences. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and signature, while the second gives a clear usage trigger. Every sentence earns its place without 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?

For a relatively simple search tool with a complete input schema and no output schema, the description covers the essential scope, method, output, and use case. It could mention pagination or default limit behaviors, but these are already defined in the schema, so the description is sufficiently complete.

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 for the 3 parameters is 100%, and each has descriptive meaning in the schema (e.g., 'What to search for'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 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 verb 'Search' and the resource 'user's local document index' with specific detail about hybrid keyword + semantic search. It naturally distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'list_sources', which lists sources rather than searching content.

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 provides explicit guidance with 'Use this whenever a question might be answered by the user's own files,' but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives. The contrast with list_sources is implied, but not stated.

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