search_documents

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose key behavior: results are excerpt-only, excerpts are controlled by excerpt_chars (0 disables them), and pagination is 1-based with a 1-100 page_size bound. It does not state permission/auth requirements or read-only nature beyond the friend-shared `owner_username` hint, so it stops short of full transparency.

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 core behavior and the get_document hand-off are front-loaded in the first two sentences, followed by a compact structured Args block. Every line carries information an agent needs; nothing is restated from the name or schema.

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 an 8-parameter search tool with an output schema available, the description supplies everything else needed to call it correctly – query syntax, corpus/db scoping, pagination, excerpt control, and the pointer to get_document for full text. Nothing material is missing.

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 0%, so the description must compensate and it does: query syntax is documented ('+term' requires, '-term' excludes, '.all' matches everything), corpus accepts '[ALL]', target is 'OPEN' or 'USER', page is 1-based, page_size is 1-100, and owner_username is scoped to friend-shared databases. All 8 parameters gain meaning absent from the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Full-text search one DocuSky database') plus the return shape ('metadata plus a short excerpt per hit'), which immediately separates it from get_document and the listing siblings. An agent can identify the tool's role without opening the schema.

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 routes the agent: full text is omitted here, so 'call get_document with a hit's `n` (and the same db/corpus/query/page_size)' to read one in full. That is a concrete when-to-use-this vs when-to-use-the-alternative condition rather than implied guidance.

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