document_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly reveals a key behavioral trait: the tool only searches ingested documents excluding conversational memories. This is valuable, but it does not mention other behavioral aspects like ranking criteria, pagination, or potential staleness. Given its brevity, it does disclose the most critical scope constraint.

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 two concise sentences. The first delivers the core purpose and scope; the second gives a clear pointer to an alternative. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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 simplicity (search with query, optional top_k) and the presence of an output schema, the description provides essential context: the scope of the search and the alternative for broader memory search. However, it lacks any elaboration on result handling or limitations, which would be beneficial but is not strictly required given the output schema exists.

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%, and the description provides zero information about the 'query' or 'top_k' parameters beyond what the schema already shows in parameter names. The description does not compensate for the lack of parameter documentation, leaving top_k's purpose and behavior unexplained.

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 clearly states the tool's action ('Search the reference bank only') and scope ('ingested documents, no conversational memories mixed in'). It distinguishes itself from memory_search in the same sentence, which fully clarifies its specific purpose relative to siblings.

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 says when to use this tool (searching the reference bank only) and explicitly names the alternative (memory_search) for combined docs and memories. This provides clear decision guidance beyond any other context.

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