Search Documents

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description nonetheless adds real context beyond the annotations: the ranked-chunk return shape, the entitlement prerequisite (RAG-entitled plan), and the guarantee that the library is not modified.

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 tightly packed sentences: the first states the action and scope, the second the return shape and the entitlement requirement. Nothing is repeated and the most important information leads.

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 two-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers action, return shape, safety posture and the plan prerequisite. It stops short of noting anything about ranking behavior or result limits, but the essential call-time information is present.

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 100%, with both 'query' and 'k' documented inline ('What to search for', 'How many chunks to return'). The description adds no syntax, format, or tuning guidance beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (retrieve excerpts) and resource (hosted Bee document library), plus the scope of the return (ranked chunks and source labels). It is easily distinguishable from bee_documents_add, though it does not explicitly contrast with the nearby bee_memory_search sibling.

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 opening 'Use to retrieve...' frames the intended use and adds a precondition (RAG-entitled plan), which is helpful. However, it names no alternative tool or when-not condition, so an agent must infer whether to pick this over bee_memory_search or bee_research.

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