search_documents

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it barely restates the tool's function. It offers no insight into result formats, pagination, authentication, rate limits, or any side effects. This is essentially tautological.

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 extremely concise (six words), but it is under-specified and essentially restates the tool name. It is not structured or front-loaded with useful information beyond the basic action.

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?

Given no output schema and only a minimal description, the tool is not adequately contextualized. The agent has no information about what results to expect, how many matches are returned, or any limitations. This is a significant gap for a search tool.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage: both 'query' and 'searchableType' have descriptions. The tool description adds no further meaning, but since the schema already documents the parameters, a baseline score of 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?

The description 'Search for Aha! documents' clearly states a specific action (search) and a resource (Aha! documents). It is unambiguous but does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_page or get_record, which could also be used to retrieve documents.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of what kind of documents are searched, how search results differ from direct retrieval, or any exclusions.

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