search

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 reveals that the tool does semantic matching over a natural-language query, but says nothing about how results are ranked, paginated, limited, scoped, or whether interactions are read-only or have side effects. It is not misleading, but it adds very little beyond what the name and schema already imply.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It is appropriately brief for a minimal tool definition, though one could argue it is slightly under-specified—but the economy of expression is commendable.

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 tool with 1 parameter, no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and an unaddressed sibling 'fetch', one sentence is insufficient context. The description would be more complete by mentioning result limits, sort order, or any behavioral differences from fetch. The presence of an output schema helps explain return values, but the in/out behavior is still too thin for an agent to fully understand the tool's scope.

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, and it does add value by clarifying that 'query' accepts natural-language text rather than structured filters or keywords. However, it provides no examples, formatting hints, length limits, or syntax conventions—the description does the bare minimum to make the parameter actionable.

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?

'Find documents relevant to a natural-language query' uses a clear verb ('find'), a resource ('documents'), and a scope qualifier ('natural-language query'). It is clear and specific, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from its sibling 'fetch', so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use search versus its sibling 'fetch', no exclusions, and no when-to-use context. The description implies usage through the term 'search', but a sibling tool with zero differentiator guidance means the agent is left without decision support. This is 'no guidance' and scores a 2.

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