search_documents

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

Annotations already declare the tool is read-only and non-destructive. The description adds that ballot-bearing documents are excluded, which is important behavioral info. However, it does not mention any limits, pagination, or performance caveats.

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?

Two sentences, 40 words, no fluff. Essential information is front-loaded.

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 output schema exists (context signal), the description sufficiently covers return values (snippets with references). One parameter is straightforward. The exclusion of ballot-bearing documents is noted, making the description mostly complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for the single 'query' parameter. It only says 'full-text search,' lacking details on query syntax (e.g., boolean operators, phrase matching, wildcards).

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 tool performs full-text search over indexed meeting documents and returns matching snippets. The exclusion of ballot-bearing documents adds specificity. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list_meetings or get_meeting.

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 implies use for searching documents but provides no guidance on when not to use or alternatives. No mention of prerequisites or scope (e.g., date range, folders).

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