Find Documents (POST)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds only the transport detail 'using a POST request body', which is minimally informative beyond the name. It does not disclose result pagination or limits, but annotations lower the burden here.

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?

One sentence with no filler, clearly stating the operation and the transport mechanism. It is efficient but somewhat terse, repeating the POST detail already present in the title.

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 search tool with 9 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not explain what the response contains, what happens when no filters are provided, or how this tool compares to the sibling find-document variants. An agent would struggle to know what to expect or when to prefer this tool.

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%, meaning every parameter already has its own description. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the 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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Search for documents across collections'. The phrase 'using a POST request body' helps distinguish it from GET-based sibling search tools, though it does not explicitly name the alternatives.

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 on when to use this POST variant versus transkribus_coll_find_documents, transkribus_coll_find_documents_old, transkribus_coll_list_docs, or transkribus_search_fulltext. The description only identifies the HTTP method, leaving the selection criteria unstated.

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