document_intelligence_grep_content

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

No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose whether the tool is read-only or destructive, nor any side effects or permissions beyond JWT scope. It mentions routing but lacks behavioral details.

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?

Description is short and front-loaded with the action name. The routing detail is somewhat unnecessary but does not bloat significantly. Efficient overall.

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 complexity of the tool (2 optional params, output schema exists but unmentioned), the description lacks details about what is returned, what content is searched, and how it differs from search tools. Not complete enough for effective use.

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 coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It explains 'message' as free-text objective and 'inputs' as optional JSON, but doesn't specify expected format or constraints. Adds some value but not comprehensive.

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 it runs the domain agent action `grep_content` but does not explain what 'grep_content' actually does. It implies searching or retrieving content but lacks specifics. Given the tool name and siblings, it is somewhat clear but insufficient for full understanding.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'document_intelligence_search_documents' or 'grep_documents'. The description only covers routing and scope, not usage context.

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