search_documents

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

Annotations already declare safe, idempotent read behavior. Description adds crucial details: content stripped by default, ability to include via parameter, and fields that remain stripped regardless. This adds value beyond 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?

Three sentences, each carrying essential information. Front-loaded with main purpose, then specific details. No extraneous text.

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 output schema exists, description doesn't need to explain return values. Covers key behaviors and limitations. With low schema coverage, could elaborate on query syntax, but overall sufficient 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?

With 0% schema coverage, description must compensate. It explains include_content and more_like well, but does not cover query, page, or page_size parameters (e.g., query format, pagination details). Partially compensates.

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?

Clearly states 'Full-text search documents' and distinguishes from listing tools. Explains behavior of OCR content and special fields, making purpose 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?

Provides guidance on when to use include_content and more_like, and warns about always-stripped fields. Could be improved by explicitly contrasting with list_documents or other search tools.

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