document_intelligence_search_folder

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions routing through the platform's dispatcher under JWT/tenant/company scope, which provides some context, but it does not indicate whether the operation is read-only, has side effects, has rate limits, or what the output format is. The behavioral traits are minimally specified.

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 and not verbose, but the first sentence is a tautology that could be removed without loss. The parameter descriptions are minimal. Overall, it is adequately concise but not 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?

Given the tool's complexity (a dispatch to a domain agent) and the 0% schema coverage, the description lacks completeness. It does not explain what the search will return (despite an output schema existing), nor does it clarify the expected structure of the 'inputs' parameter. The tool's purpose and output are only partially covered.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It describes 'message' as 'Free-text objective for the action' and 'inputs' as 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs for the action.' While this adds some meaning, it remains vague (e.g., what constitutes an objective? what structured inputs are expected?). The description provides marginal value beyond the schema's parameter names.

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 'Run the document_intelligence domain agent action `search_folder`,' which is essentially a tautology that restates the tool's name. It does not specify what searching a folder means (e.g., listing documents, searching content, or retrieving folder metadata). Without distinguishing it from siblings like 'search_folder' or 'document_intelligence_search_documents', the purpose remains unclear.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternative tools. The description does not mention any prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent without criteria for selecting this tool over similar ones in the sibling list.

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