Search documents

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

With no annotations to carry the burden, the description steps up by disclosing exactly what each hit contains (id, title, url, snippet) and what it deliberately omits (document bodies). It says nothing about permission requirements, result caps, or empty-result behavior, keeping it below a 5.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, and the return-shape constraint is front-loaded before the routing hint to get_document.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must describe returns — and it does, listing the per-hit fields and the missing body. It leaves pagination semantics (offset/limit interplay) unaddressed, a minor gap for a search tool of this size.

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 100%, so query, limit, offset and collectionId are already documented in structured form; the description adds nothing about them. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Full-text search across Outline documents') plus the shape of the hits, which clearly separates it from list_documents. It does not explicitly name the sibling it is not (list_documents), so it falls just short of 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?

Provides a clear follow-up path: hit ids are meant to be fed to get_document, and it explicitly rules out reading bodies here. It offers no guidance on when to prefer search_documents over list_documents, so it lacks the exclusion half of a 5.

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