search_documents

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses a key behavioral detail: 'Document content is excluded from results by default.' This prevents an agent from assuming full content is returned, and it points to a follow-up tool. It doesn't address other potential behaviors like pagination or result count, but the most important surprise is covered.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, alternative, and a critical behavioral note. The main purpose is front-loaded, and there is no filler or 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?

For a one-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, routing to siblings, and a critical default behavior. It does not describe the shape of results or pagination, but the lack of an output schema makes that a minor gap. Overall, an agent has enough to decide when to call it and what to expect.

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 coverage is 0% and the parameter is only typed as a string, so the description carries the burden of explaining 'query'. It clarifies that the query is a 'full text query' used to match against 'content, title, and metadata', which gives the parameter meaningful semantics beyond the bare type. It stops short of specifying query syntax or examples, but it is adequate for a single simple parameter.

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 the specific verb-resource pair 'Full text search for documents' and elaborates that it searches 'document content, title, and metadata.' It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling 'list_documents', so an agent can immediately tell them apart.

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 clear guidance: use this tool for full-text searches, 'use 'list_documents' instead' for listing or field filtering, and 'Use 'get_document_content' to retrieve content when needed.' This is an explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use with named alternatives.

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