search_text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It mentions the return format and that it uses FTS5, but lacks details on pagination, rate limits, or side effects. For a read-only search tool, the disclosure is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 waste. The first sentence states the core purpose and output. The second gives usage guidance, and the third explains parameter semantics. Information is front-loaded efficiently.

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 presence of an output schema (not detailed in description) and 3 parameters, the description covers purpose, usage, return format, and parameter meanings. It omits explicit limits on result count or pagination, but the schema hints at 'limit' with default. Overall, sufficiently complete for a search 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 adds crucial meaning: for 'query', it provides FTS5 syntax examples; for 'service', it explains selection of microservice index. The 'limit' parameter is not elaborated, but the schema provides default. Overall, it compensates well for missing schema descriptions.

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 it performs 'Exact full-text search across a service (FTS5)' and specifies the return format 'path:line: content'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_semantic and search_hybrid, which imply non-exact or semantic search.

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?

It explicitly lists use cases: 'Use for known strings, identifiers, config keys, error messages.' It does not mention when not to use, but the context of siblings provides some guidance. The description also explains FTS5 syntax and service selection.

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