search_documents

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention key traits such as whether the operation is read-only, whether authentication is required, what happens on empty results, or any rate limits. The brief description does not compensate for the missing annotations.

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 that starts with the action verb. It avoids unnecessary words and explains the core function efficiently. However, it could be structured to include more details without becoming verbose, such as a brief note on output or limitations.

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 three parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not indicate what the search returns (e.g., structured results, snippets), how results are ordered, or any pagination behavior. An agent would need to infer too much from the schema alone.

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 low (33%), meaning the tool description should compensate for missing schema details. However, the description only vaguely references 'natural language or structured filters', which maps to 'query' and 'filters' parameters but adds no specifics about valid values, defaults, or the 'options' parameter. The nested object structure is not explained.

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 verb 'Search' and resource 'documents', and mentions the two search modes: natural language or structured filters. This differentiates it from sibling tools like get_document (retrieve by ID) and analyze_document (analyze). However, it could be more specific about the scope (e.g., within workspace or globally) to fully distinguish from similar tools.

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 its siblings, such as get_document or analyze_document. It does not mention prerequisites, fallback strategies, or when not to use it. For example, if an agent needs a specific document by ID, get_document would be more appropriate, but this is not indicated.

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