doc_search_orphans

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It communicates a PRO+ plan requirement, which is a valuable access constraint, and defines the search criterion. However, it does not disclose the scope (e.g., entire workspace vs. current doc), output format, or any potential side effects, leaving important behavioral details underspecified.

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 exceptionally concise: two short sentences that front-load the core purpose and a critical access requirement. There is no wasted wording, and the structure is immediately scannable.

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 simple zero-parameter tool, the description covers the essential behavior and the PRO+ plan restriction. However, it lacks explicit scope (e.g., workspace-wide) and does not mention output characteristics, which would improve completeness for an agent. The absence of an output schema raises the need for some return-value indication, but the phrase 'find' implies a list of pages.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameters. Per the rubric, the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4. The description adds no conflicting information, and the schema's empty object with additionalProperties true is not contradicted.

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's function: finding orphaned pages with no incoming links. The verb 'find' and the specific resource type (orphaned pages) make the purpose unambiguous, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like doc_search_links_to or doc_search_unresolved.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The mention of 'PRO+ plan' indicates a prerequisite but not a usage context. The agent must infer this tool is for discovering pages that have no inbound references, which is somewhat clear from the purpose, but there is no comparative or exclusionary guidance.

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