uselink_search_documents

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It reveals that the tool is bound to the active PAT and that it's a thin wrapper, which implies it inherits the read-only behavior of list_documents. However, it does not explicitly state safety (read-only, non-destructive), pagination behavior, or how search matching works.

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 two sentences, front-loads the primary purpose, and uses the second sentence to concisely explain the relationship to a sibling tool. Every word earns its place with no 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 tool is simple (3 flat params, no output schema), but the description leaves gaps: it doesn't describe return results (beyond implying documents), doesn't explain limit/offset semantics, and doesn't state the safety profile. Given the lack of output schema, more detail about return values would make it more complete.

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 input schema covers only the 'query' parameter with a description, leaving 'limit' and 'offset' undocumented (33% coverage). The description clarifies that 'query' is the free-text search field but adds no meaning for limit or offset, such as their role in pagination. Since schema coverage is low, the description should have compensated but did not.

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 performs free-text search across documents in the active PAT-bound workspace, using a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly noting it's a thin wrapper over uselink_list_documents with the search field set.

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 provides clear context by referencing uselink_list_documents as the base functionality, implying this tool is for searching while list_documents is for unfiltered listing. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or mention other alternatives like uselink_read_document.

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