unifier_search_documents

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it usefully discloses two behavioral traits — read-only operation and that files are not downloaded — which is meaningful context. It stops short of describing permissions, rate limits, pagination, or what the metadata result contains.

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 lead phrase front-loads the tool identity and the rest packs the mechanics into one dense but readable sentence with no filler. The semicolon-joined clauses are slightly heavy but every clause contributes information.

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 read-only listing tool with no output schema, four params at 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description is only partially complete. It conveys purpose and the safe-read behavior but omits return format, pagination, and most parameter semantics that the missing structures leave unaddressed.

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% across 4 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It only loosely gestures at 'shell' (project_number), 'ruta' (parent_path), and local filters by name/author/date (search_text), while leaving node_type's Folder/Document enum, required-vs-optional status, and format constraints undocumented.

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 specific verbs and a resource ('consulta los metadatos de una ruta y lista documentos bajo esa carpeta') and frames the tool as a read-only document manager, so an agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not explicitly name a sibling to differentiate from, but no other sibling tool operates on documents, so the distinction is effectively clear.

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?

Usage is implied by 'de solo lectura' and 'sin descargar archivos', which tells the agent this is a safe metadata/listing operation. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not, no prerequisites, and no reference to alternative tools for shell or document access.

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