query_doc_content

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the search nature and result fields but does not elaborate on non-obvious behaviors like rate limits, authentication, or destructive potential. The tool is inherently read-only, which is implied but not stated.

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 with a clear purpose: state the tool's function, describe output fields, and specify prerequisites. No redundant information; front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose, output structure, and inter-tool dependencies. It lacks details on query syntax or ranking, but the schema descriptions for parameters are thorough. Overall, adequately complete for effective use.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100% with descriptions already explaining each param. The description adds context about requiring indexing and output format, which aids understanding but does not significantly enhance parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 'BM25 full-text search over indexed chunks' with specific result fields. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly mentioning the use of read_doc_page for full text and the prerequisite of indexing via read_doc.

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 clear context on when to use the tool (for searching indexed chunks) and what prerequisites exist (PDFs must be indexed via read_doc). It also suggests a follow-up tool (read_doc_page). However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or compare directly to siblings like search_docs.

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