search_documents

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: full-text search across content and titles, relevance ranking (exact/title matches higher), snippet returns, and collection filtering. It lacks details on pagination, rate limits, or error cases, but covers core operational traits well.

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 well-structured with clear sections (overview, important details, usage guidelines, args, returns) and front-loaded key information. It could be slightly more concise by integrating the 'Args' and 'Returns' into the main flow, but all sentences earn their place by adding value.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description does an excellent job of completeness for a search tool. It explains purpose, usage, parameters, and return format ('formatted string with titles and contexts'). Minor gaps include lack of pagination or error handling details, but it's largely sufficient.

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 description must compensate. It adds significant meaning beyond the schema: 'query' is explained as 'search terms' with examples like 'vacation policy,' and 'collection_id' is clarified as 'optional collection to limit the search to.' This fully documents both parameters with practical context.

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 'searches for documents using keywords or phrases across your knowledge base,' specifying both the action (search) and resource (documents). It distinguishes this from siblings like 'read_document' (single document access) and 'ask_ai_about_documents' (AI-powered querying) by emphasizing full-text search across content and titles.

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?

The description includes an explicit 'Use this tool when you need to:' section listing four specific scenarios, such as finding documents with specific terms or limiting to a collection. This provides clear guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'read_document' for direct access or 'list_collections' for browsing.

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