search_documents

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does reveal that results include source locations and that search is limited to the current workspace, which is useful behavioral context. Still, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe any side effects, permissions, or limits, though 'find' implies a non-mutating search.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action, the output characteristic (source locations), and the scope ('this workspace only') efficiently, making it easy to scan and parse.

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 that an output schema exists, the return shape is covered elsewhere. The description provides a minimal but adequate purpose and scope for a simple search tool, but it omits parameter semantics and explicit guidance on when to use it versus siblings, leaving noticeable gaps for an agent to resolve.

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%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters, but it does not. It only indirectly hints that session_id scopes the search to a workspace; it gives no guidance on what constitutes a well-formed 'question' or how to obtain/supply the session_id.

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 uses a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('relevant passages with source locations'), and scopes the operation to the current workspace. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like index_document, list_documents, and delete_document, which perform different operations.

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 tool's purpose implies when to use it: when the agent needs to find relevant passages rather than list, index, or delete documents. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state constraints like 'use instead of list_documents when content-level search is needed,' leaving some inference to the agent.

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