search_text

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose a key trait: results are line-level matches rather than whole documents. But it does not clarify matching semantics such as case sensitivity, query operators, whitespace handling, or whether filenames are also searched, leaving notable gaps for an unannotationed tool.

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 dense sentence with the primary action front-loaded and a parenthetical that adds meaningful behavioral detail without waste.

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 tool, the core selection and invocation intent are present. However, query syntax and search scope remain underspecified, and no constraints or limits are mentioned; adequate for simple use but not fully complete.

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?

The schema only defines a required 'query' string with zero description coverage. The tool description adds no syntax, formatting, or interpretation guidance beyond the generic word 'full-text,' so the agent must guess at valid query semantics.

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 action ('Recherche plein-texte') and resource ('dans le vault'), with the parenthetical adding result granularity. No sibling tool performs content search, so it is clearly distinct from listing/browse 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 intended use is implied: an agent should use this when it needs full-text content lookup inside the vault. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or comparison against alternatives such as list_notes or get_search_capabilities.

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