search_documents

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by specifying full-text search (FTS5), pagination behavior (defaults and max), and return format. It doesn't mention rate limits or authentication needs but covers core behavioral aspects adequately.

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?

Well-structured with purpose statement followed by organized parameter and return sections. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words, and key 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?

The description is quite complete for a search tool with 5 parameters and no annotations. It explains parameters thoroughly and mentions the return format. With an output schema present, it doesn't need to detail return values further. Minor gap: no explicit mention of authentication or error handling.

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 fully compensates by explaining all 5 parameters with clear semantics, examples, defaults, and constraints. It adds substantial value beyond the bare schema.

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 searches Epstein case documents using full-text search (FTS5), specifying both the action (search) and resource (Epstein case documents). It distinguishes from siblings like search_flights and search_persons by focusing specifically on documents.

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 usage for searching Epstein case documents but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like cross_search. It provides filtering parameters but no guidance on tool selection context.

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