search

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains that results cite source_id/source_url (not absolute filepath) and outlines the retrieval pipeline. However, it does not disclose if the tool is read-only, destructive, or any authorization requirements.

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?

Three succinct sentences with no wasted words. Front-loaded with the primary purpose, then adds behavioral context.

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 the output schema exists, the description credits the return format. It covers core behavior and a notable constraint (no absolute filepath). Missing details like pagination, ranking, or error handling, but adequate for a straightforward 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?

The description does not mention any of the three parameters (limit, query, hybrid). With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to add meaning beyond what the schema's type, title, and default provide. For example, it could explain hybrid search behavior but does not.

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 searches an AI knowledge base and mentions the retrieval spine (hybrid → fusion → CE), but does not strongly differentiate from sibling tools like 'discover' or 'get_context'.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions the shared retrieval spine but does not indicate when to prefer search over discover or get_context.

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