document_intelligence_search_documents

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

Annotations already carry destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description needed to clarify what side effects occur; it only adds routing and JWT/tenant/company scope. There is no warning that a tool named 'search_documents' may be destructive, which is a significant transparency gap.

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 short, with arguments presented in a readable block and no obvious filler. The first sentence is redundant with the tool name, which keeps it from being a 5, but overall it is efficiently structured.

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?

Even assuming the output schema exists, the agent lacks enough information to reliably call this tool: the meaning of 'objective,' acceptable structured input shapes, and the destructive side effects are undefined. For a generic domain-agent wrapper marked destructive, this is incomplete.

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 burden falls on the description. It provides minimal meaning by calling message a 'free-text objective' and inputs an 'optional JSON string of structured inputs,' but it does not explain expected formats, examples, or how the action interprets these values.

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 opening line only restates the tool name: 'Run the document_intelligence domain agent action search_documents.' It never explains what searching documents actually does, what document corpus is searched, or how results are returned. The routing/auth context is infrastructure detail, not a purpose.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as document_intelligence_search_folder, grep_documents, ask_document_agent, or search_documents. The only context is that it routes through the domain-agent dispatcher, which explains the invocation path, not the decision boundary.

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