search_text

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

No annotations and no output schema, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the pipeline and that hits are classified as disasm/comment, but says nothing about result ordering, permissions, performance/rate characteristics, or what the cursor-based pagination returns. For a paged search tool with zero structured coverage, this is a notable gap.

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 paragraphs with no filler; the core behavior is front-loaded. The internal API names are slightly implementation-flavored but justify the 'native C++ scan' claim, so they still earn their place.

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 an 8-parameter, paged search tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the return shape only in outline (one hit per EA, classified). It omits pagination/ordering expectations and the routing requirement of instance_id, leaving a few gaps an agent must fill from the schema.

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 100%, so every parameter including limit, regex, start, include, and code_only is already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

It states a precise verb+resource ('search the rendered listing') and even names the mechanism (ida_search.find_text over generate_disassembly output). It clearly differentiates from raw-byte search by specifying 'rendered listing', though it stops short of naming the closest siblings (find, find_regex, find_bytes) directly.

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?

The phrase 'rendered listing' implies this is for disassembly-text/comments rather than raw bytes, which hints at when it beats find_bytes. But there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use versus find, find_regex, or entity_query, leaving the routing decision mostly to inference.

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