Search Content

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the return shape ('with paths and match context'), which is useful since no output schema exists, but says nothing about result limits, pagination, ordering, or the cost of a full-text scan. Modest added value over the annotations.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the operation before the return description. Nothing is wasted, though the content is thin enough that it under-explains rather than over-explains.

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 four-parameter, read-only search tool with no output schema, the definition covers what is searched and roughly what comes back. It omits result caps, pagination/continuation behavior, and any note on search scope (spaces, workspaces, languages), which an agent needs to call a search reliably.

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 100%, and the schema documents search_type, include_forks, and include_deleted more precisely than the description does (e.g. defaults, fork semantics). The description's 'by title or full text' merely restates the search_type enum, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search across all content items') plus the matching modes ('by title or full text'), so the core operation is unambiguous. It does not, however, differentiate itself from search-adjacent siblings such as end_user_search, list_content, or get_content, which an agent must choose between.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites or alternatives. The only implicit signal is 'across all content items', which hints at scope but does not tell the agent why it should pick this over end_user_search or a plain listing call.

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