Search bookmarks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context: case-insensitivity, which fields are searched, and that all detected browsers are included. However, it does not mention read-only nature, result ordering, pagination, or possible performance implications, leaving gaps for a fully transparent behavioral profile.

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 a single, focused sentence that conveys all core information without redundancy. It front-loads the action and resource, then adds key qualifiers (case-insensitive, fields, browsers). Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient.

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 is reasonably complete: it specifies search scope, case sensitivity, and the object being searched. It does not explain return values, but that is arguably implied by the name and common sense. The main omission is lack of usage guidance relative to siblings, which prevents a perfect score.

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% (source is described, query and limit are not). The description compensates partially by naming the searchable fields, which clarifies what the query parameter matches against. Yet it adds no semantics for the limit parameter, and the source filter is already described in the schema. Overall, the description adds some value but does not fully cover the missing parameter documentation.

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 a specific verb ('search') and resource ('bookmarks'), and explicitly defines the scope: case-insensitive matching across titles, URLs, folders, and tags in all detected browsers. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_bookmarks or recent_bookmarks, which serve different purposes.

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 implies usage: use it when you need to find bookmarks by search terms. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. Clear context is provided by the search semantics, but no explicit contrast with sibling tools is offered.

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