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 meaningfully explains hybrid retrieval, optional metadata filtering, structured citations, and cross-encoder reranking, which helps an agent anticipate results and configuration effects. It does not mention auth, rate limits, or whether results are paginated, but the disclosed retrieval behavior is substantive.

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 three focused sentences with the primary action front-loaded. The filter example and reranking note each add value without redundant filler, making it an efficient and well-structured definition.

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?

The description gives enough for a basic search call and mentions result citation structure, and an output schema is presumably available to define the return shape. However, the missing semantics for limit and document_id, plus the absence of explicit differentiation from query_tables, leave noticeable gaps for correct tool selection and full argument usage.

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, but it only addresses filter via an example and implicitly covers query. The limit and document_id parameters are not explained, leaving a significant semantic gap for agents that need to constrain result count or scope to a specific document.

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 names the tool's action 'Search indexed documents' and adds a distinctive retrieval approach ('hybrid dense+sparse retrieval'), so the core purpose is clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like query_tables, leaving some ambiguity about which search-like tool is appropriate.

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 implies usage for searching indexed documents and shows an example filter key, but it gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over query_tables or when the alternative should be used. No exclusions or when-not-to-use conditions are mentioned.

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