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 behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the most important trait — returns metadata only, not the document body — plus the organization scoping constraint. It does not describe edge cases like empty results or auth requirements, but it does not mislead and covers the behavior an agent most needs to avoid wrong expectations.

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 with zero filler: the first establishes purpose and scope, the second clarifies the return contract and routes to siblings. Every clause earns its place.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description compensates by enumerating the returned metadata fields and routing content-reads to get_dument and list_document_sections. The 6-parameter surface is fully covered by the schema. Minor gaps remain around ordering, empty -result behavior, and error conditions, but nothing critical for selecting and invoking the tool correctly.

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%, so the input schema already documents all 6 parameters. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond reinforcing organization scoping and previewing the returned metadata fields (name, folder, URL, timestamps). Per the baseline for high coverage, a 3 is correct.

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 (search), resource (documents), and scope (scoped to an organization), and clarifies the return contract (metadata only, not the body). This distinguishes it from sibling search_* tools on other resource types and from get_document/list_document_sections without requiring the agent to open any schema.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool (metadata search) versus alternatives: 'Use get_document or list_document_sections to read a specific document's content.' The exclusion is direct and names the alternative tools, leaving nothing to inference.

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