hermes_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and discloses the search scope (published documents only), the result shape (titles, owners, product areas, document types), and a critical failure mode — passing docNumber to hermes_get_document returns 404. Pagination behavior and empty-result semantics are left to the schema and inference, which keeps this from a 5.

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?

Three sentences with zero filler: purpose first, then the result contract, then a caution about the docNumber pitfall. Every sentence carries operational value, and the critical integration warning is placed last without burying the purpose.

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?

With no output schema or annotations, the description compensates by specifying the result fields the agent can expect and the exact follow-up contract with hermes_get_document. The notable omission is explicit treatment of pagination and empty-result behavior, which the schema only partially covers via the page and hits_per_page parameters.

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 100% with all five parameters documented, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema (e.g., query operators, case sensitivity, or how product/doc_type filters combine), so it neither improves nor degrades the baseline.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search documents in Hermes using full-text search') and immediately scopes behavior to 'matching published documents,' which distinguishes it from sibling draft/list tools. It also names its follow-up sibling, hermes_get_document, making the tool's role in the workflow unambiguous.

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?

Provides explicit workflow routing: results contain an objectID that must be passed to hermes_get_document, and warns against passing docNumber. However, it does not contrast itself with list-based siblings (e.g., hermes_list_drafts) or state when browsing is preferable to searching, so the when-to-use guidance is partial but clear.

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