search_documents

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'full-text index search' and language support, but lacks critical behavioral details: it doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, how results are returned (e.g., pagination, sorting), performance characteristics, or error handling. For a search tool with no annotations, this is inadequate.

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 very concise with a single sentence, which is efficient. However, it's under-specified rather than optimally concise—it could benefit from slightly more detail without becoming verbose. It's front-loaded but lacks depth.

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?

Given the complexity of a search tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., search results format), how to interpret outputs, or any limitations. This leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to use the tool effectively.

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?

The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the input schema provides. The schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting 'query', 'documentType', and 'limit' with enums and defaults. The description doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide additional context, so it meets the baseline of 3.

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 performs 'full-text index search' and supports 'Chinese-English mixed search', which provides a basic purpose. However, it doesn't specify what resource is being searched (documents, files, etc.) or distinguish it from sibling tools like 'list_stored_documents' or 'get_stored_document'. The purpose is somewhat vague about scope.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to prefer this over 'list_stored_documents' (which might list without search) or 'get_stored_document' (which retrieves a specific document), nor does it specify any prerequisites or exclusions for usage.

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