Search Markdown

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses search behavior: title substring, body whole-word match, ranking, and bolded snippets. However, it omits details like case sensitivity, pagination, or result limits, which would further aid the agent.

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?

Two sentences only, each serving a clear purpose: first explains behavior, second provides usage guidance. No redundant or vague phrasing.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers search scope and result features (bolded snippet). It could mention result structure or limits, but overall is fairly complete.

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 schema already covers parameter semantics with 100% coverage ('Search query; matched against document titles (substring) and body text (words).'). The description adds minimal semantic value beyond usage context, so 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'search' and resource 'documents', and details the matching behavior (title substring, body full-text whole-word, ranked, bolded snippet). It distinguishes from all sibling tools, none of which perform search.

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 explicitly says 'Use it to find a prior report by its content or name', providing clear context for when to use. It does not mention exclusions or alternatives, but no other search tool exists among siblings.

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