Search documents

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

Annotations already provide safety signals (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds valuable behavioral details beyond those: highlighting behavior and the hard cap on `size`. This is meaningful operational context that the annotations do not cover.

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?

Three sentences, each contributing necessary information: scope, highlighting behavior, and paging constraints. The most important usage constraint is front-loaded. No filler or redundancy.

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 sufficiently covers scope, input, highlighting, and paging constraints. There is no output schema, and the description does not detail the response structure, but the core behavior and critical operational details are present. Slight gap around return format, but not severe 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema documents both parameters well. The description adds extra semantic value by explaining how paging works inside queryBody and the size limit, which is not obvious from the schema alone.

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 a specific action ('Search one index') and resource ('one index') with a query DSL body, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like count, get_document, and list_indices. The scope is precise and immediately understandable.

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 gives concrete usage guidance on paging, including the size cap of 100 and how to use `from` for more results. It does not explicitly compare to alternatives like count or get_document, but the 'one index' scoping and query DSL focus provide clear context.

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