Search document archive

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

Goes beyond the annotations by disclosing cost and feedback behavior: it walks every folder, takes a few seconds, and reports progress as it goes. That latency expectation is genuinely useful for an agent deciding whether to call it. Missing is any note about match limits or what happens when nothing matches.

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 short sentences with zero waste: scope and filters first, then the operational caveat. Nothing is buried or repeated.

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, so return shape need not be explained, and the description covers scope, cost and progress reporting. Only minor gaps remain, such as result limits or behavior on an empty match set.

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 100%, so folder_id, name_contains and added_within_days are already documented with examples and constraints. The description restates the filter axes without adding syntax, combination or precedence guidance, so baseline 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?

Names a specific verb (search) and resource (the whole document archive across all sub-folders) plus the filter axes: upload date and/or file name. That distinguishes it from a plain list or read tool, though it never names the siblings (list_documents, recent_documents) it most resembles.

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 scope phrase 'whole document archive (all sub-folders)' implies you reach for this when you need cross-folder lookup, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no pointer to recent_documents or list_documents for cheaper narrower cases.

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