search_documents

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, covering safety. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: image files are skipped (`skipped_images`), search is exact string matching (not semantic), and users should retry with different phrasing. This gives agents crucial operational insight without contradicting any annotation.

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 compact and well-structured: purpose statement, usage guidance, and limitations in three short paragraphs. Every sentence adds value, and the key information (purpose) is front-loaded. 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 three well-documented parameters and an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what it does, when to use it, how to handle its limitations, and citation instructions. The mention of `skipped_images` and retry advice rounds out the context. Nothing critical is missing.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds minor extra guidance (e.g., stating `snippet.line` should be cited), but the parameter details like query format and limits are already fully documented in the schema. It does not compensate for any gaps because none exist.

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 specific verb (검색, search), resource (폴더 전체, entire folder), and result (관련 문서와 발췌, related documents and excerpts). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_documents (listing without search) and extract_content (extracting specific 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?

Explicitly states when to use: '사용자의 질문에 답할 근거를 찾을 때 쓴다' (use when finding evidence to answer the user's question). It also provides two limitations (images not searched, string matching only) and advises retrying with different wording. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare with specific siblings, so it misses the full 'when-not/alternatives' guidance.

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