search_documents

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states search scope and optional filters but does not explain whether the operation is read-only, how filters combine, how pagination behaves, or what query syntax is expected. 'PubMed-style' hints at behavior but is not explicit.

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. Every phrase contributes to the core purpose or key capability, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 tool with 9 parameters, no annotations, and zero schema descriptions, one sentence is not enough. The output schema may cover return values, but the description omits query syntax, filter semantics, pagination behavior, and sibling selection cues, leaving significant gaps for correct invocation.

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. It adds useful meaning by labeling 'query' as an FTS query and grouping title, authors, journal, and year fields as metadata filters. However, it does not clarify query syntax, filter combination logic, or the meaning of kb/page/page_size beyond their names.

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 clearly identifies 'search' as the action and 'documents' as the resource, and 'document-level' helps separate it from chunk-level searching. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives such as list_documents, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 use for finding documents via full-text query and metadata filters, but it offers no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no comparison with search_chunks or list_documents. An agent is left to infer when this tool is the right choice.

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