evidence_search

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It notes the use of 'optional local embeddings' and 'deterministic lexical fallback', which adds insight into how the search operates. However, it does not disclose return format, permission requirements, or whether the search is purely read-only, though 'Search' implies it.

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 a single compact sentence that front-loads the primary action ('Search allowlisted local notes') and adds relevant implementation detail. Every word earns its place; no fluff or 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?

The tool has only two simple parameters and no output schema. The description covers the core functionality and even adds fallback behavior, but omits any information about return values, result ordering, or error conditions. For a search tool, this is moderately complete but has clear gaps.

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 0%, and the description does not mention any parameters. The 'query' parameter is implicitly required, but 'max_results' is not addressed. The description adds no value beyond the schema, leaving parameter semantics under-explained.

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 the verb 'Search' and the resource 'allowlisted local notes', making the tool's function clear. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like evidence_read, but the search intent is evident from the name and resource description.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as evidence_read or evidence_append_lesson. The description doesn't mention contextual signals or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool's name alone.

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