search_documents

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds that it 'actually opens' document bodies and returns snippets, which hints at a potentially slower operation, but it does not disclose performance implications, pagination, or error behavior. Given the annotation coverage, the added context is modest but sufficient for a 3.

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, efficient sentence that immediately states the core action and output. There is no filler or redundancy, and the most important information (opening documents and returning snippets) is front-loaded.

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 that an output schema exists (not shown in full) and the input schema fully describes parameters, the description covers the basics. However, it does not mention potential caveats like handling large file sets, behavior when no results are found, or any limitations on folder scope. These gaps are moderate for a search tool, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 has 100% coverage of parameter descriptions, so the schema already documents each parameter (query, kinds, folder, max_files). The description does not add meaning beyond what the schema states, so the baseline score of 3 applies. No additional semantic value is contributed.

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's function: it opens the actual body text of documents to search for terms and returns surrounding sentences as evidence snippets. This is specific and distinct from a simple metadata search. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like scan_documents, so it loses a point for lacking sibling differentiation.

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. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions that would lead an agent to choose this over scan_documents or read_document. The usage context is only implied by the nature of the tool (searching content), but there is no explicit routing.

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