es_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it discloses the size default of 10, the non-obvious rule that aggs with no query forces size to 0, the {status, body} return envelope, and that 4xx/5xx surfaces an ES root cause error. Authentication/connection assumptions are the main undisclosed trait.

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?

Dense and front-loaded: endpoint mapping first, then parameter mapping, then pagination and projection guidance, then return/error behavior. Every clause conveys a distinct fact with no filler.

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 12-parameter nested-object tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers return shape, error semantics, defaulting behavior, and param mapping. The remaining gap is the relationship to es_request and the meaning of the required connection parameter.

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 only 42%, and the description compensates by mapping the undocumented body keys (sort, from, search_after, track_total_hits, highlight, script_fields, _source) and clarifying that query is DSL only, not a full body. It omits the size ceiling of 1000 and leaves the connection parameter entirely unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search an index') and immediately grounds it in the underlying endpoint ('Wraps POST /{index}/_search'), so an agent knows exactly what it does. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling es_request, which could also issue a _search body, so it stops short of 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?

The description gives operative advice on how to use the tool ('Page with from+size or sort+search_after', 'Use source to project fields and keep responses small'), which implies the intended usage pattern. However it never says when to pick this over es_request, nor names prerequisites, so alternative selection is left to inference.

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