query_documents

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

In the absence of annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: exact keyword matching, semantic vector search, and score interpretation (0 = most relevant). It also advises on query refinement, leaving no ambiguity about how the tool operates.

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 three sentences long, front-loading the primary purpose, then efficiently explaining the search mechanism and result scoring. Every sentence adds value; no extraneous content.

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 description covers essential aspects: what the tool does, how it searches, and result scoring. With no output schema, it could mention potential response structure but is still sufficiently complete for a search tool with limited parameters.

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%, providing detailed descriptions for both query and limit. The tool description echoes the schema's guidance on query but adds no new parameter-specific information. Thus, it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 opens with 'Search ingested documents', clearly stating the tool's purpose. It distinguishes itself from siblings like delete_file and ingest_data by focusing on searching. The additional detail about keyword and vector search further clarifies its functionality.

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 implicit guidance on query formulation (preserve specific terms, add context) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide when-not-to-use scenarios. With sibling tools listed but not referenced, the guidance is adequate but not comprehensive.

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