Archive Keyword Search

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

Annotations already indicate read-only behavior (readOnlyHint: true). The description adds transparency about the result format: it can return 150-character snippets or full notes depending on the 'include_full' parameter, and it clarifies search scope (names and notes). This adds useful context beyond 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 two concise sentences that efficiently convey the core action, scope, and complementary relationship to a sibling tool. Every sentence adds value with no 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 complexity (7 parameters, output schema exists, annotations present), the description is complete: it covers purpose, result format, relationship to sibling, and key parameters. The output schema handles return values, so no further detail needed there.

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?

All 7 parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage), so the schema already provides good meaning. The description adds minimal extra parameter-level detail mostly repeats the search categories. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 keyword search across archive colour names and notes, and lists specific types of queries (name fragment, material, cultural reference, etc.). It explicitly distinguishes itself from a sibling tool (conceptual embedding search) by specifying exact keyword matching, making the purpose distinct.

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 mentions that this tool complements conceptual embedding search with exact keyword matching, providing clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly exclude other usage scenarios or mention when-not-to-use, missing a chance for fuller guidance.

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