Recall cached facts before retrieving

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It reveals meaningful behavioral traits: semantic vs lexical ranking depending on embeddings, returning both ledger hits and blob hits with line ranges, and its link to offload_fetch. This adds valuable context beyond a simple search tool, even though it does not explicitly state 'read-only' or side effects.

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?

Three sentences with no filler, front-loaded with the primary action. The second sentence is slightly long with a parenthetical, but each sentence adds distinct value. It is concise without being sparse.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality, use case, behavioral contingencies, and how to pair it with offload_fetch. The missing piece is parameter documentation, but overall it is complete enough for an agent to understand when and how to invoke the tool.

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 by explaining parameters. It only implicitly addresses the query (the search term) and mentions 'limit' indirectly via 'line ranges', but does not clarify the meaning of 'limit' or 'sessionId'. The description falls short of compensating for the complete lack of schema coverage.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search the verification ledger + offloaded blobs for already-known facts and content.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like ledger_query (which only queries the ledger) and offload_fetch (which fetches offloaded content), making the tool's purpose immediately clear.

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?

Explicit when-to-use guidance is present: 'CALL THIS BEFORE querying the codebase / context engine' and explains the benefit (avoids pulling whole files, token saver). It also mentions an alternative ('querying the codebase / context engine') and provides a concrete use case, making it highly actionable.

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