Search Documents by Title

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by disclosing return fields (docId, title, direct URL, inTrash) and the metadata-based, fast search nature, without contradicting annotations.

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?

Three short, dense sentences that front-load the core purpose and immediately convey key behavior and return values. No filler or redundancy.

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 output schema and comprehensive parameter schema, the description covers purpose, method, performance, and return fields. It slightly lacks explicit differentiation from the sibling find_doc_by_title, but remains sufficiently complete for a search tool with strong structured metadata.

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 provides 100% description coverage for all 7 parameters with detailed meanings and defaults. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema already specifies, so the baseline of 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?

Clear verb+resource+scope: it searches documents by title using workspace metadata, and explicitly lists return fields. However, it does not distinguish itself from the similarly named sibling tool find_doc_by_title, so it lacks sibling differentiation.

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?

Provides context by stating it is much faster than exporting each doc, implying a use case. But it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools like find_doc_by_title or list_docs, leaving usage boundaries vague.

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