search_compliance_docs

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It does state the return format ('top N matching chunks with source + relevance score') and the default/override behavior for collection. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or disclose any potential side effects, rate limits, or auth requirements.

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 with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose; the second adds configuration nuance. 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 params, no output schema), the description provides sufficient context: purpose, return shape, default behavior, override capability. It could mention edge cases or limits on top_k, but for a RAG search tool this is largely 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context by explaining the default collection/retrieval method and that top N corresponds to top_k, which is marginally helpful but doesn't add significant new meaning.

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 action ('Search') targeting a distinct resource ('Proofpane governance / compliance document corpus') and specifies the mechanism ('cloud RAG service'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling search tools like grep or session_search despite not naming them explicitly.

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 explains default configuration behavior and collection overrides, but it does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like grep or session_search. Usage context is implied ('compliance document corpus') but no explicit alternatives or exclusions are given.

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