Search Documents

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses output shape (ranked snippets with locators), a key limitation (never full text), and a recommended next action. It doesn't mention pagination or error conditions, but for a search tool the provided behavioral details are substantial and accurate.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: first defines the search mechanism, second specifies the output and locators, third gives a crucial usage boundary and points to the sibling. Perfectly front-loaded 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?

The overall context is adequate for a simple search invocation: it explains output, the usual starting-point role, and the follow-up workflow. However, with 5 parameters including a nested filter object and no annotations, the description leaves mode/filter/scoping semantics unexplained, so it's not fully complete despite the output schema.

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 only 20%, so the description must compensate. It only vaguely references the hybrid mode and the fact that search spans 'ingested documents'; it does not explain k, mode choices, the filter object, or how document_id scoping works. The description adds almost no value for the parameter set beyond what the bare schema shows.

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 it performs 'Hybrid BM25 + semantic search across ingested documents' and returns 'ranked snippets with precise locators' — a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing search and pointing to get_chunk_context as the follow-up for full text, so an agent knows this is the retrieval entry point.

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?

It explicitly says 'This is the usual starting point' and provides an exclusion: 'It never returns full text — follow a hit with get_chunk_context using its chunk_id to read.' This tells the agent when to use this tool and when to switch to a named alternative, which is exactly what this dimension asks for.

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