Search documents (filter/sort, cross-organization)

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses auto-pagination, default slim rows vs. full objects, and the cross-org behavior. It does not mention permissions, error handling, or explicitly state read-only status, but the 'search/list' framing strongly implies a safe read. The behavioral details provided exceed the minimum.

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 compact and well-structured: a front-loaded summary followed by three bullet points and a return-value note. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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 no output schema, the description effectively explains the return behavior (slim default, full objects with slim=false) and covers all core parameters with examples. It omits details about the maxItems safety cap and pagination bounds, but these are present in the schema. Overall, it is complete enough for a search tool.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds significant value beyond the schema: it provides executable filter examples, explains the quoting rule, gives a sort format example, and illustrates when to use cross-org parameters. This transforms abstract parameter names into actionable knowledge.

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 verb+resource ('Search / list documents') and scope ('across one or many organizations'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like wflow_get_document (single document) and wflow_export_documents (export). The phrases 'wflow filter syntax' and 'auto-pagination' add specific behavioral detail not present in the name alone.

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 concrete usage examples for `query` (e.g., `orderNo = "Z01"`, `totalAmount > 1000`), `sort` (e.g., `created desc,totalAmount`), and explicitly explains when to use `allOrganizations` or `organizations` for cross-org queries. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the context and examples give clear guidance.

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