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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Full-text search' implies read-only semantics but nothing is said about result limits, ranking, pagination, or matching behavior. An output schema exists, which reduces the need to describe returns, but the description still adds almost no behavioral context.

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 five-word phrase with no filler and the action is front-loaded. It is efficient, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.

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?

With only one required parameter and an output schema handling the return value, the description barely clears the bar. It is nonetheless thin for a tool that must be distinguished from three other search-like siblings in a crowded namespace.

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 0% and the sole parameter 'query' is a bare string with no description. The phrase 'full-text search' weakly implies the parameter is the search expression, but no syntax, matching rules, or examples are given to compensate for the schema gap.

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 names a specific verb (search) and resource (content across the graph) plus the search mode (full-text), so the purpose is unambiguous. However, it makes no attempt to differentiate from siblings like fuzzy_find_and_traverse, which sounds like an adjacent search capability.

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?

There is no indication of when to use this tool versus find_by_type, fuzzy_find_and_traverse, or get_entity. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no alternative routing are provided.

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