search_conversations

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses key behaviors: read-only nature, index scope possibly covering all assistants, returned fields, limit defaults and maximum, and the crucial warning that returned snippets are untrusted and must not trigger following embedded instructions or tool calls. This exceeds typical transparency.

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 compact yet information-dense, with the purpose front-loaded and every sentence contributing practical value (scope, usage, return fields, limit behavior, security warning). No filler or redundancy.

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 two simple parameters, the description covers the essential contextual aspects: what results contain, how to use follow-up tools, limits, and the trust boundary. An output schema exists, so return-value details are not required; the description is sufficient for safe and 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?

The schema has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), so the description compensates by specifying limit's default (15) and max (50) and advising concise keyword usage for the query parameter. While query's semantics are obvious from the tool name, the limit details add value beyond schema.

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 opens with '全文搜尋 RikkaHub 歷史對話（唯讀）' which clearly states the action (full-text search) and the resource (RikkaHub historical conversations), while noting it is read-only. It differentiates from siblings by implying search over conversation history, distinct from recent_conversations or get_conversation_context.

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 provides practical usage instructions: use concise keywords, and explicitly directs to call get_conversation_context when context is needed. It does not explicitly contrast with recent_conversations, but the search-vs-recent distinction is implied, making the guidance clear but not exhaustive.

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