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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It names the engine (FTS5) and multilingual support, but says nothing about result ordering, ranking, limits, permissions, or return shape for a read tool.

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?

One compact sentence with no filler; scope is front-loaded. It is perhaps too terse given the gaps elsewhere, but nothing is wasted.

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 annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented query parameter, the description is far too thin. It doesn't tell the agent what results look like or how to phrase queries.

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 0% and there is a single required parameter 'q', but the description only implies a query string without explaining FTS5 syntax, phrase handling, or multilingual matching behavior.

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) and the resources it spans: agents' memory and the Knos Record, enumerating content types (papers, crossings, decisions, events). It's clearly distinct from knos_memory_recall and knos_crossings, though 'search everything' slightly blurs the line.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus knos_memory_recall, knos_crossings, or knos_evidence. The sibling names imply overlap, and the agent must guess which retrieval tool applies.

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