Search the design

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful behavioral detail: case-insensitive substring matching, matching against both name and text content, and the returned id/type/path structure. This is valuable because no output schema exists to carry that information.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that states the matching behavior and the return fields without filler. Every word earns its place, and the tool's core behavior is immediately visible.

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 output schema, the description covers the key context: what is searched, what matches, and what is returned. Minor details like result envelope shape or ordering are absent, but the parameters and defaults are already documented in the schema, so the agent has enough to call the tool 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 100%, so all four parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('search' implied by name/title) and a precise resource: nodes whose name or text content contains a case-insensitive substring. It also names the return fields (id, type, path), which makes the tool's function unambiguous and distinguishable from sibling get/list tools.

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 description implies when to use it: when you need to find nodes by substring matching. However, it gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives, such as using vault_get_node when an exact node id is already known, so routing decisions are left to inference.

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