search_documents

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the tool returns metadata only, not the document body, which is a critical behavioral trait. It doesn't mention pagination or sorting behavior, but those are evident from the schema; the key usage constraint is well communicated.

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?

Two sentences, immediately stating the purpose, followed by crucial output limitations and alternative tool guidance. No wasted words; every sentence earns its place.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description names the returned metadata fields (name, folder, URL, timestamps) and guides the agent to content-reading tools. Pagination and sort details are in the schema, so the description is reasonably complete for a search tool.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that organization_id is required ('scoped to an organization') but does not add additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search') with a clear resource ('documents') and scope ('scoped to an organization'). It also distinguishes from siblings by stating it returns metadata only and explicitly pointing to get_document and list_document_sections for content.

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?

Provides explicit alternatives: 'Use get_document or list_document_sections to read a specific document's content.' This clearly tells the agent when not to use this tool (when full content is needed), satisfying the usage guidance dimension.

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