document_intelligence_search_folder

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

No behavioral traits are described beyond the annotation-provided destructiveHint and readOnlyHint flags. The description does not explicitly contradict those annotations, but it also adds no context about side effects, permissions, rate limits, or what could be changed or deleted.

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 does not contain fluff. The first sentence is somewhat redundant with the tool name, but the routing note and concise Args list keep the overall structure clean and scannable.

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?

The description does not explain what the document_intelligence domain agent action `search_folder` accomplishes, what kind of folder is searched, what outputs to expect, or how message/inputs affect the action. Given the large sibling tool set and generic wrapper nature, this leaves significant ambiguity.

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 parameter descriptions are extremely generic: 'message' is a free-text objective and 'inputs' is an optional JSON string of structured inputs. Since the schema provides no field descriptions or enums, the description was expected to compensate but gives no concrete details about allowed values, expected JSON structure, or examples.

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 essentially restates the tool name: 'Run the document_intelligence domain agent action `search_folder`.' It does not say what searching a folder actually does or how it differs from sibling tools like `search_folder` or `search_documents`, beyond the generic domain-agent wrapper.

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 instead of alternatives. The only additional sentence explains routing through the domain-agent dispatcher under JWT/tenant/company scope, which is a mechanism detail, not a usage criterion.

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