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. It discloses a read-only nature via '[tier: readonly-owner]' and indicates the return type ('matching IDs'). However, it does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or the exact behavior when combining customerIDs and documentIDs (e.g., AND vs OR).

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 (two short sentences plus a tag) and front-loads the primary action. Every sentence earns its place, with no fluff or repetition.

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?

For a tool with 2 params, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides the core purpose and a basic return description ('matching IDs'). However, it lacks parameter semantics, combination logic, and any details about pagination or result format, making it only partially 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only says 'attached to customers' but does not explain that customerIDs filters by customers or documentIDs limits to specific document IDs. The meaning of both parameters is left ambiguous, and the interaction between them is undisclosed.

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 action ('Search'), resource ('documents attached to customers'), and output ('return matching IDs'). It distinguishes itself from sibling get_documents by specifying the attachment to customers and the search/filter behavior.

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 clear context (searching documents by customer) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use. The presence of a sibling get_documents implies a distinction, but the description itself does not reference it. Usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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