Find Documents (Legacy)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds only the word 'legacy,' which hints at deprecation status but provides no behavioral context such as pagination semantics of index/nValues, result limits, or differences from the current endpoint. No contradiction with annotations, but minimal added value.

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 single sentence is efficiently short, but it borders on under-specification rather than genuine conciseness. 'Legacy endpoint' adds nothing beyond the title, and no other information is front-loaded because there is no other 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 14-parameter tool with no output schema sitting in a dense cluster of sibling find_documents tools, a one-line description is grossly inadequate. An agent cannot determine which endpoint this calls, how results are returned, how it differs from the modern variant, or what the legacy constraints are.

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 schema fully documents all 14 parameters. The description adds nothing about parameter meaning or relationships beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a verb and resource ('Search for documents'), but 'the legacy endpoint' is vague and merely restates the title's 'Legacy'. With three near-identical siblings (transkribus_coll_find_documents, transkribus_coll_find_documents_post, transkribus_coll_count_find_documents), it fails to clarify what distinguishes this variant. Purpose is clear at a high level but not specific enough to differentiate.

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 guidance whatsoever on when to use this tool versus the non-legacy find_documents variants or the count variant. An agent has no way to know whether 'legacy' means deprecated, restricted, or preferred for certain cases. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternatives are mentioned.

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