search_by_metadata

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Search' and gives no detail about how multiple metadata fields combine, whether term is a partial/fuzzy match, case sensitivity, default behavior, or how results are ordered or limited. The read-only nature is implied but not stated.

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 sentence with no redundancy, which is structurally clean. However, it is under-specified: it is concise primarily because it omits useful usage and behavior guidance rather than because every sentence is information-dense.

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?

With 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and multiple sibling search tools, the description is not complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. It lacks parameter semantics, use-case differentiation, and behavioral expectations; the existing output schema partially mitigates but does not compensate.

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%, and the description does not compensate by explaining term, creator, content_type, or max_results. 'By metadata fields' loosely connects the parameters to the search, but it adds little meaning beyond the parameter names and leaves max_results entirely unaddressed.

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 clear verb ('Search') and resource ('content in Alfresco') and identifies the mechanism ('by metadata fields'). However, it does not differentiate from sibling search tools like search_content, advanced_search, or cmis_search, so it misses the distinction needed for a 5.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With four sibling search/browse tools available, an agent gets no signal about whether metadata-field search is preferred for this query or how it differs from full-text or CMIS search.

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