search_documents

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It states case-insensitive substring search and lists return fields. It does not mention potential limits, pagination, or performance, but for a simple search tool the disclosure is adequate.

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, no unnecessary words. Information is front-loaded: first sentence explains functionality, second sentence lists return fields. Every piece of information serves a 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?

Given one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core functionality comprehensively. It explains what the tool does, what it returns, and its search scope. No missing critical details.

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 100% with the 'query' parameter described as 'Search term.' The description adds that the search is across titles and content, providing context beyond the schema. This justifies a score slightly above baseline 3.

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 case-insensitive substring search across titles and plaintext content, which is a distinct operation from sibling tools (CRUD, attachments). The verb 'search' and resource 'documents' are specific.

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 explains what is searched (titles, content) and what is returned (id, title, encrypted flag, matched field, snippet). No explicit when-not or alternative tool guidance, but sibling tools are obviously different (create, update, delete, etc.), so context provides clarity.

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