Search Corpus

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that deferred or remote-only sources return an explicit not_ready/remote_only result with a provenance envelope rather than failing ambiguously, which is non-obvious behavioral 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?

Two short paragraphs: a one-sentence purpose statement followed by a focused behavior note. No filler; every sentence adds value and the core action is front-loaded.

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?

The core purpose and the special adapter behavior are covered, and an output schema exists, so return structure is not the description's job. However, with zero parameter documentation in the schema and no annotations, the missing limit semantics and lack of usage boundaries keep it from being fully complete.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It clarifies that corpus is the target and query is the search string, but says nothing about limit or expected formats, leaving a required-capability gap.

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 first sentence 'Search a corpus for a query string' names a specific verb and resource, and the tool name reinforces it. It is clearly distinct from siblings like list_corpora and get_text_metadata, though it does not explicitly call out any sibling.

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 this is the tool for querying a corpus, but it never says when to prefer it over alternatives or when not to use it. The adapter-mode information is behavioral rather than selection guidance.

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