search_documents

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose the metadata-only return behavior (get_document/list_document_sections needed for body), which is useful. However, it doesn't mention pagination behavior, rate limits, or filter matching semantics beyond 'partial match' (which is in the schema). The core behavioral disclosure is present but not exhaustive.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste. The first sentence states the core purpose and scope, the second adds the critical behavioral caveat (metadata only) and points to alternatives. Every sentence earns its place.

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 search/list tool with 100% schema coverage and clear behavioral disclosure, this is largely complete. The only minor gap is no mention of pagination/result-count behavior (though page_size/page_number parameters are self-documenting). The metadata-only caveat plus alternative tool pointers make this genuinely helpful for agent selection.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds org scoping context ('documents are scoped to organizations') and the metadata-only return behavior, but doesn't elaborate on parameter semantics beyond what the schema already documents. Schema covers all 6 parameters adequately.

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?

Specific verb+resource+scope ('Search for documents in IT Glue scoped to an organization'), and clearly distinguishes from siblings by stating it returns metadata only, not body — pointing to get_document as the content tool. Clear purpose with sibling differentiation.

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?

Explicitly states it returns metadata only, not the document body, and instructs to use get_document or list_document_sections for content. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to guidance with named alternatives.

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