Find nodes by their words

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds real behavioral value beyond them: a full ranking model (title hit > note hit, node supporting more of the tree > less, recency last) and the fact that closed/finished nodes are still returned. It omits any limits, pagination, or cost, keeping it from a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then ranking, then scope, in four tight sentences with no filler. The ranking clause is dense but each clause conveys a distinct tiebreak rule; the closing aphorism is flavor but brief. Efficient overall.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return burden and does so: each hit comes 'with the lineage it hangs from,' best-first. With readOnly annotations covering safety and 100% param coverage, an agent has what it needs to call this correctly; only pagination/limit expectations are unaddressed.

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 coverage is 100%, so schema already documents both parameters (baseline 3). The description goes further for 'query' by naming the searched fields (title, reason, note, outcome) and the all-terms requirement, adding meaning over the schema. It adds nothing about the 'everywhere' cross-project flag, so not a 5.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Search the provenance tree' and returns nodes whose fields contain the terms, with lineage. This is clearly a text-search tool. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like vivac_why or vivac_brief, which might also retrieve nodes, so it falls short of the top tier.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer 'use this to find nodes by keyword,' and the note that closed nodes are included signals when it stays useful (long-after-the-fact lookups). But no explicit when-to-use or when-to-prefer-an-alternative statement is given, and no sibling is named.

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