Search extracted entries

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that it performs substring matching (not exact match), searches lemma and text fields, and returns a snippet around the match. However, it doesn't mention case sensitivity, performance implications on large files, or whether the search is limited to a single file. These are useful behavioral details that are missing.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and return fields, and ends with a clear use case. Every sentence earns its place; no filler or repetition of schema details.

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?

For a search tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose and return shape but omits details like limit default, case sensitivity, and how the snippet is generated. It's adequate for basic use but not fully complete for an agent that needs to know edge-case behavior.

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 only 33% (only jsonlFile has a description). The description adds meaning by explaining that query is a substring and that results include a snippet, but it doesn't clarify the limit parameter's default or behavior, nor does it explain the format of the jsonlFile beyond the default path. The description partially compensates but leaves gaps.

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 substring searches on a JSONL dataset's lemma and text fields, and returns matching entries with specific fields (id, lemma, chapter, snippet). It also names the use case (spot-check a crawl or look up a word), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like islamweb_fetch_entry or islamweb_list_dictionaries.

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 use it to spot-check a crawl or look up a word, giving clear context for when to use it. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the use-case framing plus sibling names (e.g., fetch_entry, list_dictionaries) makes the intended usage clear enough.

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