lexomni_searchDocs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool searches indexed documents by keyword; it does not disclose the return format, result ordering, pagination/limit behavior, or that searchable content depends on a pre-built index. 'Indexed documents' hints at a prerequisite but is not sufficient.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the action (Searches), the object (indexed documents), and the method (keyword FTS) in an efficient, scannable way.

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?

Given three parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too minimal. It leaves critical operational details undefined: what 'sources' does, how 'limit' behaves, and what the result looks like. An agent can call it with just 'query', but cannot reliably predict results or apply filters 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 0% and the description only mentions 'keyword', which maps to the required query parameter. It says nothing about 'limit' (maximum results) or 'sources' (filtering by user/agent/books), leaving those parameters unexplained in both schema and description. The description does not compensate for the low schema coverage.

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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Searches') and resource ('indexed documents') with a clear method ('by keyword (FTS)'). It is distinct from sibling tools like readDoc (direct retrieval), listSources (listing sources), buildIndex (building an index), and writeNote (writing), so an agent can tell search apart from them.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no context about prerequisites (e.g., needing to build the index first). Sibling tools are known but never referenced, so the agent must infer when keyword search is the right choice from the name alone.

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