Search Content All

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions automatic pagination and efficiency, but it is misleading by saying 'all matching results' when the max_results parameter defaults to 500, potentially capping results. It omits other behaviors like rate limits, output format, and whether the operation is read-only.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, with no redundancy. It is concise and readable, earning 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?

The tool has 11 parameters and no output schema or annotations. The description is too brief to provide complete context, missing key behaviors like the default result cap, deduplication feature, and output structure. It only covers the basic search purpose.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add specific parameter semantics beyond the concept of pagination and retrieving all results, which are already reflected in parameters like page_size and max_results.

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 states the tool searches AP content, with the specific behavior of automatic pagination to retrieve all matching results. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'search_content' tool, though the 'all' scope implies it is the comprehensive version.

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 the use case for retrieving all matching results, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus search_content or other alternatives, nor does it provide any exclusions or prerequisites.

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