search

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

The annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context: it explains the ranking method, default exclusions (archived, checkpoints), query_mode behavior including error raising on syntax failure in 'raw' mode. No contradictions with annotations.

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 concise (about 150 words) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds essential information: search technology, return values, scope, exclusions, query_mode details. No redundancy or fluff.

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 complexity (7 parameters, 0% schema coverage) and presence of an output schema, the description covers key behaviors (ranking, returns, exclusions, query modes). It omits details on sorting and precise parameter formats, but the output schema can supplement return information. Overall, it provides sufficient context for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, and it does significantly. It explains the purpose of include_archived, include_checkpoints, and query_mode, along with detailed behavior for 'auto' vs 'raw'. However, it does not detail the expected format of 'query' or 'since', leaving some ambiguity for those parameters.

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 performs full-text search on ideas with specific technology (FTS5 + bm25 ranking) and returns snippet, score, and id. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list' or 'get' by focusing on search. The verb+resource combination is specific and unambiguous.

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 provides context on parameter usage (e.g., scope optional, archived excluded by default, include_checkpoints) but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use it. The guidance is implied through parameter descriptions but lacks direct alternative recommendations.

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