search_research_content

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the underlying mechanism ('SQL text matching') but does not mention return behavior, pagination, result ordering, limitations, or whether the operation is read-only or has side effects.

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 very short and front-loaded, with no filler or redundancy. The main action and target are stated immediately, though the brevity leaves substantial gaps in other dimensions.

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?

For a tool with three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is too sparse to fully guide an agent. The agent is left uncertain about what inputs mean, what the result will look like, and how this search differs from search_research_evidence or search_experiments.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the missing parameter documentation, but it does not. 'Search' implies the role of the query parameter, but limit and document_id are not explained at all, and the description adds no detail about how they affect the search.

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 states a specific verb ('Search'), a clear resource ('extracted research pages'), and the method ('SQL text matching'). It is not a tautology and gives the agent a concrete idea of what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like search_research_evidence or search_experiments.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. The description simply states what it does, without saying when it is preferred, when it should be avoided, or what alternative should be used for different search needs.

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