Both tools have minimal descriptions (under 100 chars) and lack parameter descriptions entirely. Input schemas are present but extremely sparse, only 'query' and 'local_file_path' with type and description, no validation constraints, enums, or ranges. No output schemas documented. Error handling is absent; tools return raw API responses or generic success strings. No security validation (path traversal risk in ingest_documents). Tool composition is weak: search_doc_for_context hardcodes bucket_id=177221, limiting reusability. ingest_documents hardcodes file_type='pdf' and bucket_id=17279, forcing all ingestion through a single bucket. Neither tool accepts human-friendly identifiers or provides pagination/limits.

• Add detailed parameter descriptions: 'query' should specify max length, language, and whether wildcards are supported. 'local_file_path' should document allowed file types, max size, and absolute vs relative path handling.
• Document output schemas. search_doc_for_context should return {results: [{id, title, snippet, score}], total_count, next_cursor}. ingest_documents should return {file_name, bucket_id, status, estimated_availability_time}.
• Validate and sanitize local_file_path: reject paths containing '..' or absolute paths outside a safe directory. Return clear error: 'Path must be relative to /data directory and not contain parent directory references.'
• Accept bucket_id and collection_id as optional parameters (with sensible defaults). Allow users to specify which knowledge base to search/ingest into, not just hardcoded buckets.
• Add structured error responses: {error: 'invalid_query', message: 'Query must be 1-500 characters', suggestion: 'Try a shorter, more specific query'}. Distinguish retryable (timeout, rate_limit) from fatal (invalid_api_key, file_not_found) errors.