cms_search_policy

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly explains the hybrid integration (tries index first, falls back to Drive) and the return format (name, path, drive id, url, source). While it doesn't explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, the search nature and fallback mechanism strongly imply no destructive side effects. A minimal score deduction for not explicitly stating read-only or potential delays from fallback.

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 concise (3 sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. The key instruction about document text/OCR is placed at the end, which is logical context but could be more prominent to prevent misuse. No redundant information.

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 2 simple params and no output schema. Given the complexity, the description adequately covers the search behavior, source, and output fields. It might benefit from noting any rate limits or document count expectations, but this is a minor gap for a relatively straightforward 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing context for the 'topic' parameter ('e.g. "anti bribery" or "food safety" or "leave policy"'), clarifying its semantics beyond the schema's minimal description. For 'limit', it adds a default value ('5') not present in the schema. This elevates the score to 4.

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 uses specific verbs ('search', 'resolves', 'returns') and identifies the resource precisely: 'internal ARL policy/SOP/manual library (Tier 1)'. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like cms_bdlaws_act or cms_business_documents by specifying the source (ARL-DMS index) and fallback (Drive).

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 explicitly states the tool's scope ('internal ARL policy/SOP/manual library'), the hybrid search mechanism, and crucially tells the agent when NOT to use it: 'For document text/OCR use ARL-DMS MCP dms_fetch'. This clear redirection provides excellent decision guidance.

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