Search Content

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

Annotations establish read-only safety (readOnlyHint: true). The description adds valuable behavioral context by specifying return structure ('paths and match context'), compensating for the missing output schema. It does not mention the soft-deletion behavior (include_deleted), though that is covered in the parameter 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?

Two efficient sentences. First establishes scope (what it searches), second establishes return value (what you get). No redundancy or filler. Front-loaded with core action.

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 100% schema coverage and simple 3-parameter structure, the description is appropriately complete. It compensates well for the missing output schema by describing the return format (paths, match context). Could benefit from pagination or result limit notes, but not required given schema simplicity.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema fully documents parameters (query, search_type, include_deleted). The description echoes the 'title or full text' distinction but does not add query syntax details (e.g., wildcards) or semantic implications beyond the schema.

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 ('Search') and resource ('content items') with specific scope ('title or full text'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'end_user_search' or 'list_content'.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'end_user_search' (which may have different permission scopes) or 'list_content' (which retrieves unfiltered lists). No mention of prerequisites or when to avoid.

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