search_documents

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It only states the search scope (title pattern) without describing case sensitivity, match behavior, ordering, pagination, or return format. The schema covers the limit default, but the description lacks detail on result behavior.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the simple search functionality.

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?

The tool is simple and the schema documents parameters, but without annotations or an output schema, the description must provide more behavioral context. It covers the search scope but omits details like result structure, auth requirements, or whether it is a read-only operation. The description is adequate but leaves gaps given the absence of other structured metadata.

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 query and limit described. The description adds the phrase 'by title pattern', which aligns with the schema's query description ('Text to search for in document titles'). No additional parameter nuance beyond what the schema already provides, so 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 the tool's function: searching Granola documents by title pattern. The verb 'search' is specific, and the resource 'Granola documents' is unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_recent_documents and get_document by the search-by-title pattern scope.

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 implies usage: when you need to find documents by title pattern rather than retrieving recent or a specific document. While not explicitly stating 'when not to use' or naming alternatives, the scope ('by title pattern') and sibling tool names provide clear context for selection.

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