Search Text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says the search spans 'the database' but omits whether the operation is read-only, how it handles case sensitivity, whether regex mode alters scope, pagination behavior, timeout effects, or what the return format looks like. These omissions are significant for a search command with no structured safety hints.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient but arguably too terse for the tool's complexity, since it omits usage and behavioral detail that the reader must infer.

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 and no output schema, the description should do more to explain return values, result limits, timeout behavior, and when this search is preferable to sibling search tools. A single sentence covering only the search target leaves substantial gaps for an agent trying to invoke the tool correctly.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents query, limit, regex, timeout, and instance_id. The description adds little parameter meaning beyond the schema; its mention of 'instructions, comments' largely restates the schema's own description of query as matching 'disassembly lines and comments'.

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 provides a clear verb ('Search') and resource ('disassembly listing text'), scoping it to instructions and comments across the database. It distinguishes the tool from binary search tools like find_bytes, but does not explicitly name or contrast with close alternatives such as find_instructions, find_regex, or list_strings.

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 description states only what the tool does, with no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like find_bytes, find_instructions, find_regex, or list_strings. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context cues to help an agent choose this tool over its many search-related siblings.

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