search_documents

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It discloses the save_to_file side effect and the output_format defaults, which is helpful. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether a valid organization_id is required when filtering, or how pagination/limits behave, leaving some behavioral uncertainty.

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 structured with an Args/Returns layout, is reasonably sized, and each line is purposeful. The first sentence is an effective summary, though the Returns section barely adds value because an output schema exists.

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?

An output schema exists, which covers return structure, and the required parameter is obvious. Still, for a search tool with 5 parameters and many document-related siblings, it would benefit from clarifying search scope, sorting, and when list_documents should be preferred, so completeness is adequate but not rich.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description's parameter explanations add value. It covers all five parameters, but it is terse, especially for output_format and save_to_file, where the meaning of 'full', 'compact', and 'summary', or the temp file path for jq, are not made concrete.

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 a clear verb ('Search') and a resource ('documents by name'), so an agent can tell this is a document search tool. It doesn't explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like list_documents or get_document, but the 'by name' qualifier adds some specificity.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_documents or get_organization_documents. It also does not explain when the optional filters or output_format should be chosen, leaving the agent to infer usage from parameter names alone.

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