content_search

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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes safety, so the description only needs to add beyond that, and it does: it discloses that Id/TypeName come back null for unrecognized formats or unmatched .flax headers. Useful, but nothing on result limits, ordering, or cost of a partial scan.

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, front-loaded with the search purpose and followed by the caveat. Efficient, though the caveat is dense and could be trimmed or moved after the selection guidance that is missing.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape need not be described, and the version-verified caveat is a nice touch. Still missing for a search tool: whether an empty query enumerates everything, any result caps, and how this relates to the content_* lookup siblings.

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 0%, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning, and it does map all three params (partial path match, TypeName, extension) while implying they can be combined with 'and/or'. It omits matching semantics such as case sensitivity, substring vs prefix, and behavior when all three are null.

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 (the Content/ index) plus the three matching criteria, so the agent can tell it apart from lookup-style siblings like content_asset_info or content_resolve_guid. It does not explicitly name those siblings, keeping it below a 5.

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?

No guidance on when to prefer this over content_asset_info or content_resolve_guid, nor any note on whether criteria are ANDed or optional in practice. The only conditional sentence is about a data-quality edge case, not about tool selection.

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