paged_search

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

The description discloses important non-obvious behaviors beyond the annotations: a sort is required, an implicit _shard_doc tiebreak is added, the PIT binds the index so no index argument is needed, and the returned pit_id may be refreshed. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs to use the tool safely and correctly.

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 dense but not bloated: purpose, workflow, ordering constraint, PIT binding, and closing requirement are each covered in a few direct sentences. There is no filler, and the most important stateful protocol is front-loaded.

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?

For a stateful PIT-based pagination tool, the description covers the full lifecycle: open, call, continuation, and close. It also explains response behavior (page plus next_search_after and refreshed pit_id) and the sort/stability requirement. Output schema and annotations cover the remaining structural safety information, so nothing essential is missing for a correct call.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate heavily. It does explain pit_id, query, and search_after via next_search_after, and notes that sort is required. However, size, keep_alive, and source_includes receive no semantic explanation in either the schema or the description, leaving gaps for a 7-parameter tool.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Page through a large result set beyond the 10000 deep-paging limit using a point-in-time and search_after.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from ordinary query tools and from its open_pit/close_pit siblings. It names the exact mechanism and scope without tautology.

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 a clear sequential protocol: first call open_pit, then call paged_search with the pit_id and query, pass next_search_after and refreshed pit_id back, and finally close with close_pit. This is strong contextual guidance. It does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool versus alternatives like run_query, so it stops short of a 5.

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