dms_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It mentions scale (14,535 files) and return fields, but does not confirm read-only behavior, authorization needs, search heuristics, or pagination beyond the limit parameter. The lack of explicit safety traits limits agent confidence.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with action and scope. Every word contributes: the verb, target library, scope summary, and return fields. No repetition or fluff.

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 description covers the basics: what is searched, what is returned, and the source filter. However, it omits pagination behavior, result ordering, handling of no results, and comparison with sibling tools. Given the tool's complexity and lack of output schema, more detail would improve completeness.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds value by contextualizing the source parameter (e.g., mapping 'drive' to 'Drive root') and listing return fields not in the schema. It also states the total indexed file count, helping the agent understand search scope.

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 the ARL-DMS document library, enumerates the indexed sources, and lists the return fields. It distinguishes itself from siblings like dms_fetch or dms_list by specifying the broad search scope across multiple sources.

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 when a cross-source document search is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like dms_list or dms_fetch. No exclusions or comparisons are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage from context.

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