search_content

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add useful behavioral context by mentioning that results are relevant sections with page references. However, it does not explain query matching behavior, what counts as 'relevant,' or what happens when there are no matches.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the core action, resource, and output type efficiently.

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 two-parameter tool, the description covers the main purpose and return value. However, it leaves ambiguity about the search scope (single PDF vs. all extracted text), search semantics, and how max_results affects ranking or relevance. These gaps matter given there is no output schema and no annotations.

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 schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds general context about returning relevant sections with page references but does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema states.

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 states a specific verb ('search') and resource ('extracted PDF text') and specifies the return value ('relevant sections with page references'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools that list, extract, or get chapter 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?

The description implies when to use the tool: when the user needs to search within extracted PDF text. However, it does not explicitly distinguish it from alternatives like get_chapter_section or extract_chapter_content, nor does it clarify whether the search covers a single document or all extracted PDFs.

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