search_content

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure, but it only states 'searches.' It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, authentication requirements, result format, pagination, or any side effects, which is a significant gap for a search tool.

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, concise sentence with no redundancy, which is appropriate in length. However, it is under-specified for a six-parameter tool, so it earns a middle score for conciseness but not for substance.

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?

Given the tool's six parameters, absence of annotations, and lack of an output schema, the one-sentence description is critically incomplete. It offers no information about return values, parameter usage, prerequisites, or the overall context for invocation, making it inadequate for correct use.

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 schema has six parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain any of them. The agent is left to guess the meaning of 'path', 'query', 'token', 'cookie', and 'portal_type', and the tool description provides no compensation for this lack of schema clarity.

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 'Searches' and identifies the resource 'content in the Plone site,' which distinguishes it from sibling content creation/deletion tools. However, it lacks specificity about search scope or capabilities, so it is clear but not maximally distinguished.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of search-specific use cases, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like get_dynamic_page_content, leaving the agent without context for tool selection.

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