search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about whether this is read-only, how matching works (fuzzy vs exact vs substring), or what happens with multiple matches. An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the search semantics remain undisclosed.

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 instruction is front-loaded and the examples earn their place by illustrating query granularity. The line breaks mid-sentence are slightly untidy but nothing is redundant or padded.

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 one-parameter search with an output schema, the description covers how to phrase the query adequately. It leaves gaps on search matching behavior and on routing versus `where_is`, which is the main missing context for correct invocation.

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 only parameter is an undocumented `query` string, so the description must compensate. It does so usefully: the query is a short list of remembered words, phrased like a question to a person, with concrete examples that show the expected granularity.

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?

"Ask the drawer a question" is metaphorical; the description never literally says it searches stored items, though the examples ('HDMI adapter', 'spare house key') make the intent recoverable. It also does not distinguish this from the sibling `where_is`, which likely performs a similar lookup.

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 gives query-formulation advice (list remembered words, keep it short) but no when-to-use versus alternatives such as `where_is`, `list_by_room`, or `list_kinds`. An agent cannot tell from the text when this tool is the right choice over its closest sibling.

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