search_documents

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

The description discloses some behavioral traits, such as searchOption filtering and tab scoping, but it directly contradicts the schema by saying 'use 0 to search all tabs' while the schema specifies -1 as the default and all-tabs value. This misleading instruction undermines transparency. There are no annotations to provide additional safety or behavior context.

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 reasonably short and front-loaded, with the purpose stated first. However, it contains a factually incorrect instruction about tabID that should be corrected, and the inclusion of this error makes the structure less reliable. It earns a middling score for conciseness because it could be accurate and equally brief.

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 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should provide more guidance on pagination, date filters, sorting, and expected return behavior. It only covers searchOption and tabID, and even that is flawed. The tool is not adequately described for safe, correct invocation without additional information.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds minimal new meaning beyond re-stating enum values. More importantly, the tabID guidance conflicts with the schema, actively misleading the agent about a critical parameter. This detracts from parameter clarity rather than enhancing it.

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 'Search for documents in a Yuki archive folder by text' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_documents. It also briefly previews key filtering parameters, making the tool's purpose immediately clear.

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 an explicit prerequisite instruction: 'Call get_document_folders first to find the folderID.' It also explains how searchOption and tabID scope the search. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives, the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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