Search Documents

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about the Incoming queue and the ability to list without a query. It does not disclose pagination or result format, but that is less critical given the annotations.

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 with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded ('Search uploaded documents'), and the special status-list behavior is placed in a clear second sentence. Every word 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 search tool with no output schema and all-optional parameters, it covers status semantics and query optionality. However, it doesn't state what happens when no parameters are provided (e.g., does it return all documents?), and it omits any hint about the result shape, which could leave an agent uncertain when calling with an empty object.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds real meaning by explaining that status array values ['pending','error'] correspond to the Incoming queue and reinforces that query is optional when filtering. This helps an agent select parameter combinations intelligently.

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?

States a specific verb ('Search') with resource 'uploaded documents' and examples of document types. While it doesn't explicitly name sibling tools, the scope is clear enough to distinguish it from wiki or tax-fact searches, but not from document-related siblings like find_related_documents.

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 specific usage tip: status ['pending','error'] is the Incoming queue and the tool can list without a query. However, it gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over similar document-related tools, and no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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