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, and it does disclose meaningful traits: the returned metadata fields (id, name, size, version, location) and that results paginate via page_token. It omits read-only confirmation, auth requirements, rate limits, and behavior when no filters are supplied, but the return-shape and pagination disclosure is strong for a search tool.

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?

Three tight sentences with the core action front-loaded, followed by return shape, pagination, and a usage tip. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 9-parameter, zero-required search tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers filters, return fields, pagination, and folder-scope behavior adequately. Minor gaps remain around default/no-filter behavior and auth, but nothing critical to calling it correctly 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 coverage is 67%, and the description maps filters to parameters (matter_id, parent_id, contact, query for name) and names 'category' for the otherwise undocumented document_category_id. It reinforces scope semantics, adding meaning beyond the raw schema descriptions.

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 (Searches) and resource (documents in Clio) and enumerates the exact filter dimensions (matter_id, parent_id, contact, query, category), so the agent can tell it apart from clio_document_read/download/get. It does not name any sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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 final sentence ('For the contents of a folder use parent_id + scope=children') gives concrete when-to-use guidance for a specific scenario, which is genuinely actionable. However, there is no guidance on when NOT to use it or when to prefer clio_document_get, clio_document_read, or clio_folder_list instead.

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