record_search

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two non-obvious behaviors: results are masked, and the query is logged as a receipt by hash only, which is meaningful side-effect context. It omits read-only status, result limits, pagination, and permission requirements, leaving significant gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Two short sentences with the core mechanic front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence about receipting is unusual but earns its place by disclosing a privacy-relevant side effect.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and three undocumented parameters, the description is too thin. It never explains what 'masked' means for usability, what 'surface' controls, or how many results come back, all of which an agent needs before calling it.

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% for all three parameters. The description implicitly covers 'kind' (record kind filter) and 'query' (substring), but says nothing about their optionality, matching semantics, or case sensitivity, and 'surface' is never mentioned at all.

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 and resource ('Search graph records') plus the matching mechanism ('by kind + substring') and the shape of the return ('masked summaries'). That is enough to separate it from record_read or record_ingest, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

The kind+substring matching implies the discovery use case, so an agent can infer this is the lookup tool rather than the by-ID fetch. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusions, and no pointer to record_read or receipt_list as alternatives.

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