document_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only notes the optional capability, but does not state whether the operation is read-only, what the return format is, or how it behaves across different modes. This is minimal disclosure.

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 a single concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It is not tautological and is structured effectively, but it could have used additional space to explain more, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

The tool has 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description must provide complete context. It only mentions the optional capability and fails to describe return values, error conditions, or how search modes affect behavior, making it insufficient for reliable use.

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 0%, and the description provides no explanation of the query, mode, or limit parameters. The enum values (fulltext, vector, hybrid) are self-naming but their semantics (e.g., hybrid combines fulltext and vector) are not explained, leaving the agent to guess.

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 the tool searches documents, which is a clear verb+resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like document_list or fact_search, and the 'optional document capability' adds context but not scope or distinctiveness.

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 only guidance is 'when the optional document capability is installed', which is a prerequisite, not a usage guideline. There is no mention of when to use this tool instead of document_list, fact_search, or other document tools, and no exclusions.

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