fts_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return format (list of hits with book_id and snippet) but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, or error handling. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational behavior.

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 and front-loaded, consisting of two sentences that efficiently convey the core functionality and output. There is no wasted language, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It explains the return format but misses behavioral aspects like search scope, performance hints, or error cases. For a tool with 2 parameters and no structured support, more context is needed to guide effective usage.

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 0%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The tool description does not mention any parameters explicitly, failing to compensate for the coverage gap. However, with only 2 parameters (one required, one optional with a default), the baseline is moderate as the schema structure is simple, but no value is added beyond the schema.

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's purpose: 'Full-Text Search for a string' specifies the verb and resource, and 'Returns a list of hits that include a book_id and a short snippet of text' explains the output. It distinguishes from siblings like 'search_book_content' by focusing on full-text search across books rather than content within a specific book, though the distinction could be more explicit.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_book_content' or 'search_books'. The description implies usage for finding text snippets across books but does not specify contexts, exclusions, or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer based on tool names alone.

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