search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the search engine behavior, lack of stemming, wildcard inflection behavior, language expectations, and result ordering. It stops short of covering permissions, rate limits, or failure modes.

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-loads the core capability, then gives compact, practical query guidance and ordering behavior. Every sentence earns its place and nothing is wasted.

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 search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description adequately covers matching behavior and ordering. It is incomplete because it never explains the optional `initiative` filter, which could matter when an agent scopes a search.

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?

Adds real meaning beyond the schema for the `query` parameter, especially no-stemming and prefix matching semantics. But schema coverage is 67%, and the `initiative` parameter is undocumented in both schema and description, leaving one of three parameters without semantic guidance.

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: 'Full-text search across name and body via Cozo FTS.' That is clear enough to distinguish from generic retrieval siblings, but it does not explicitly name which sibling to use instead of, or alongside, this one.

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?

Provides useful query guidance such as 'No stemming — search the form you wrote' and when to append `*` for inflection-tolerant matching. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance relative to alternatives like recall, trace, or surface.

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