document_search

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

The description discloses key behaviors: it requires prerequisites, uses CBR search, returns ToolError if CBR not enabled, and explains that additional properties narrow results. With no annotations provided, this adds substantial behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 lengthy but well-structured with prerequisites, parameter descriptions, and an example. However, it contains some redundancy and could be more concise, justifying a score of 3.

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 covers prerequisites, parameter usage, behavior, and includes an example. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to detail return values. Minor omissions like max_results behavior are not critical, so the description is mostly complete.

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 low (33%), but the description compensates by explaining the search_term parameter (content vs metadata search), the search_parameters structure, and the role of search_class and search_properties. The example further clarifies usage, making parameter semantics clear.

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 it searches documents by content and metadata criteria. The name 'document_search' and the focus on documents distinguishes it from sibling 'repository_object_search'. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar tools, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 prerequisites section explicitly lists required prior tools in order (determine_class and get_searchable_property_descriptions), and states that the search class must be a document class. This provides clear context for when to use this tool, though it lacks explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance.

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