search_context

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description still earns credit by disclosing result behavior beyond annotations: bounded ranked output, ordering current > stale > invalid, source IDs, and visible freshness/evidence issues on every match. It omits edge behavior such as how limit truncates or how asOf affects filtering.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and then the return contract. No filler, no restatement of the name, every clause adds information.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully characterizes the return set, ordering, and freshness/evidence fields. However, for a 3-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage it leaves asOf and limit semantics completely unexplained, so an agent lacks what it needs to set those inputs 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 carry parameter meaning, and it largely does not. It never explains asOf (date-time semantics), limit (bound behavior), or query beyond the implicit notion of a search string. It says the result is 'bounded' but not how the limit parameter controls that.

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+resource ('Search synthetic organizational context') and even characterizes the result shape (ranked, bounded). It is distinguishable from siblings like validate_record and explain_source by the resource and operation, though it never names or explicitly contrasts them.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The agent gets no signal about when search_context is preferred over validate_record, inspect_ingestion, or explain_source, nor any prerequisite/context conditions. Usage is only implied by the verb 'Search'.

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