search_documents

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, but the description adds useful context: case-insensitive matching, snippet support conditionally, and the fact that it returns nothing until documents are processed. This goes beyond the annotations by explaining the data dependency and snippet behavior, which is valuable for the agent.

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, with three sentences that are front-loaded: it states the primary use case first, then details behavior and constraints. Each sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more structured with bullet points, but it's clear and efficient.

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 the complexity of 9 parameters but with full schema descriptions and an output schema, the description covers the key behavioral aspects: search functionality, case-insensitivity, snippet availability, and dependency on document processing. It doesn't explain return format, but that's covered by the output schema. It's complete enough for an agent to call it correctly.

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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters, so the schema already documents each parameter clearly. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, such as mentioning case-insensitivity for text_query and snippet support. Since schema coverage is high, baseline 3 is appropriate; it doesn't need to compensate.

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 it performs full-text search over extracted document text, with a specific verb 'search' and resource 'documents'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like search_filings by focusing on text content rather than metadata, and even mentions the snippet behavior, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 usage for full-text search scenarios and notes that it returns nothing until documents are processed, which guides expectations. However, it does not explicitly contrast with search_filings or other alternatives, though the phrase 'Use this for full-text search' implies a specific use case. Lacking explicit exclusions, but the context is clear enough.

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