Find Related Documents

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations by revealing that the tool performs two types of matching (already-linked and AI-suggested) and on which fields. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core function and matching logic; the second adds output composition and concrete usage examples. Every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only tool with only two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description is complete: it states what the tool does, how it matches, what it returns, and when to use it. No critical calling information is missing.

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%, with both entity_type and entity_id already documented. The description adds general context about how entity matching works (amount, vendor, date, reference) but does not add parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('documents related to an entity'), and adds matching criteria (amount, vendor, date, reference) and output types (already-linked and AI-suggested). It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like search_documents or get_document_links, so it falls 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?

The description gives explicit use cases with natural-language examples: 'are there any receipts for this transaction?' and 'find documents related to this invoice'. It provides clear context for when to invoke the tool, though it does not state when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it misses the 'explicit when/when-not/alternatives' threshold.

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