search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool performs retrieval with local reranking and returns page citations, which gives some insight into behavior. However, it doesn't explicitly state read-only nature, any limitations, or auth requirements. The description adds some behavioral context but not comprehensive.

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 that conveys the core functionality and key differentiators in a concise, front-loaded manner. No wasted words; every phrase adds meaning.

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 tool has 4 parameters, no annotations, and no parameter descriptions, the description is too sparse. It doesn't cover scope (e.g., whether it searches all documents), how document_ids affects behavior, or any usage guidance. The output schema exists, so return values are covered, but the tool's context of use is not fully specified.

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 explain the parameters. It doesn't mention query, top_k, or document_ids. However, it does clarify that 'mode' relates to the hybrid/text/visual options through the description's mention of BM25/dense/visual. Overall, it provides insufficient parameter-level explanation.

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 identifies this as a retrieval tool using hybrid BM25/dense/visual methods, with local reranking and page citations. It distinguishes from sibling tools like grep (which likely does content-based text search) and list_documents (listing) by specifying the retrieval mechanism. However, it uses a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb, but the name 'search' plus description makes the purpose obvious.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like grep, read, or list_documents. It doesn't mention use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. The technical details imply it's for semantic search, but it doesn't state when to prefer it over grep or other tools.

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