document_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the corpus-scope constraint, but says nothing about result ordering, relevance behavior, or chunk granularity beyond what the schema/output schema implies.

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 tight sentences with zero waste; the corpus-scope constraint is front-loaded ahead of the cross-reference to the alternative tool.

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 annotations carrying the safety profile, an output schema present, and both parameters fully documented, the description only needs to establish scope and routing — which it does completely.

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% (query and top_k both documented in the schema), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no syntax, formatting, or query-construction guidance beyond the schema's 'Natural-language description of the passage wanted.'

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 (Search) and a precisely scoped resource (the reference bank / ingested documents only), and explicitly names the sibling it is not (memory_search). An agent can distinguish it from the ~30 memory_* siblings without opening any schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use (reference bank only, no conversational memories) and the alternative plus its selecting condition (docs AND memories together → memory_search). Nothing about tool selection is left to inference.

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