search_documents

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Supports pagination,' which adds some context about handling large datasets, but fails to cover critical aspects like read-only vs. destructive behavior, authentication needs, rate limits, or error handling. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 extremely concise with just two sentences: 'Search documents by keyword. Supports pagination.' Every word earns its place, and it's front-loaded with the core purpose. There's no wasted verbiage, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 complexity (4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameter meanings, behavioral traits, output format, and differentiation from siblings. For a search function in a document-heavy system, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to operate effectively.

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%, meaning none of the 4 parameters are documented in the schema. The description only mentions 'keyword' (implied for 'query') and 'pagination' (implied for 'limit' and 'offset'), but doesn't explain 'collectionId' or provide details on parameter usage, formats, or constraints. It adds minimal 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's purpose: 'Search documents by keyword.' It specifies the verb ('search') and resource ('documents'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'find_related' or 'list_document_comments', which might also involve document retrieval, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'Supports pagination,' which hints at usage for large result sets, but doesn't explicitly compare to siblings like 'list_recent_documents' or 'find_related.' Without clear when/when-not instructions or named alternatives, the score is low.

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