homestead_search

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the search is offline, that results are sourced from a local corpus, that passages are returned verbatim, and that availability persists without internet. These are meaningful behavioral traits that an agent needs to know. It does not cover every possible detail, but for a read-only search tool it is transparent enough.

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 front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by a concise explanation of what is returned and when to prefer it. The parenthetical list of topics is somewhat long but provides useful scope context. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 tool's moderate complexity, three parameters, and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context for selection and invocation: what it searches, what it returns, and when it is preferred. It could mention category enumeration or sibling distinctions, but the schema already points to homestead_categories, so this is adequately complete.

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 input schema already documents all three parameters with descriptions, including 'k' defaults/rangeable values and the 'category' slug semantics. Schema description coverage is 100%, so the description is not required to compensate. The only parameter-related phrase in the description is 'matching documents,' which is already implied by the schema, so no additional semantic value is added.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search the offline Homestead Library.' It further states that it returns 'matching documents with verbatim passages from the source texts,' which clarifies the exact output. It also differentiates the tool from general knowledge by emphasizing the local, offline nature of the corpus.

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 explicitly says to prefer this tool over general knowledge for 'practical homestead, emergency or preparedness questions' and gives the rationale: these are the user's curated documents and they work offline. It does not explicitly compare against sibling tools like homestead_categories or homestead_docs, so it stops short of a full 5.

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