Search docs

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint=true annotation, the description adds a useful behavioral detail: 'Matches in the returned content_preview are delimited with << >> markers.' This informs the agent about output formatting, which is not present in annotations or schema. It does not mention potential rate limits or error cases, but the added marker convention provides meaningful transparency for a read-only search tool.

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 exactly two sentences. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose with action and scope; the second adds a concrete output detail and an explicit alternative. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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 the tool's simplicity (2 required parameters, no output schema), the description covers everything essential: the search scope (all pages in a workspace), the result marker convention, and the guidance to use semantic_search for natural-language questions. This is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema already documents both parameters with descriptions: 'Search terms' for query and 'Workspace UUID or workspace slug' for workspace. The tool description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. With 100% schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states exactly what the tool does: 'Full-text (keyword) search across all pages in a workspace.' It uses a specific verb ('search') and resource ('all pages in a workspace'), and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling semantic_search by noting when to prefer that alternative. This makes the purpose unmistakable.

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 explicit usage guidance: it identifies the tool as a keyword/full-text search and directly states 'For natural-language questions, prefer semantic_search,' naming the alternative and the condition for its use. This clearly tells the agent when to choose this tool versus a sibling.

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