Search TIA Analysis Notes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that by disclosing the signature-matching/staleness check, which is not encoded anywhere in the structured fields. It does not explain what an 'export signature' is, how staleness is reported, or how matching is applied, so it remains partial.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, front-loading the action and resource before the signature-matching detail. Nothing in it is redundant with the title or schema.

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 tool with no output schema and zero parameter documentation, the description should say what comes back (the notes themselves? a match/stale flag per note?) and clarify the required exportDir and limit behavior. It answers 'what does it do' but not 'what do I get' or 'how do I scope it', leaving meaningful gaps.

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%, so the description carries the full burden for all three parameters. It implies a text query ('Search ... notes') and an export scope (the current export signature), but never mentions the required exportDir or the limit/cap of 50 (max 200), nor what empty query means. Two of three parameters are effectively undocumented.

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 a specific resource (persisted model-authored engineering notes), plus an unusual secondary job: reporting whether each note still matches the current export signature. That is far more informative than the title alone. It does not explicitly contrast with the save counterpart (tia_save_analysis_note) or with tia_search_export, so it stops short of a 5.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The agent is not told when to reach for this rather than tia_search_export or tia_fast_lookup, nor whether an export must already exist before searching notes. Usage is only inferable from the verb 'Search'.

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