search

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

Annotations already signal read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description adds value by disclosing that only allowlisted documents are searchable, content files must be UTF-8 and under 256 KiB, and results may be truncated. This is meaningful operational context beyond the 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 compact and well-structured: the first sentence establishes purpose and output, and the second states technical constraints with an actionable mitigation. Every sentence earns its place without repetition.

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 output schema covers return shape, the description covers the rest of the decision space: allowed document scope, cross-project search, the citation-id handoff to fetch, the 256 KiB limit, and truncation handling. An agent has enough context to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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 description must compensate for the four parameters. It gives useful semantic context for project_id and glob via the truncation guidance, and query is implied, but the limit parameter is not described at all. This is partial but not complete compensation.

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 identifies a specific action (search), a distinct resource (allowlisted governance documents), and a clear cross-project scope. Mentioning that it returns citation IDs for fetch further distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_file or fetch.

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 clear usage context: search across governance documents and use fetch with the returned citation IDs. It also gives practical guidance to narrow project_id/glob if truncation occurs, though it does not explicitly enumerate when not to use this tool versus each sibling.

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