egw_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add value by stating that results include standard citations and by explaining parameter semantics. However, it omits behavioral details such as whether the search is full-text, how book abbreviations are matched, or what happens with invalid inputs or no results. It is not contradictory, but it is only partially transparent.

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 concise and well-structured. A one-line purpose statement is followed by a useful result-format note, then a clean args list. Every sentence contributes necessary information, and the purpose is front-loaded so an agent can quickly decide whether to invoke the tool.

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 simple search tool with three parameters and an output schema, the description covers the essential information: what to search, how to refine by book and limit, and what the results look like. It does not discuss error cases or edge behaviors, but the output schema and examples fill most gaps. A short note on valid book matching might make it 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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must carry the full semantic weight. It does so thoroughly: query is defined with exact-phrase guidance, book lists accepted abbreviations/examples, and limit specifies the valid range (1-50). This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare type/default information in the 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 starts with a clear verb and resource: 'Search Ellen G. White's public-domain writings.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like bible_search and beliefs_search by explicitly naming the corpus. The citation example adds useful specificity without obscuring the core purpose.

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 its usage context by naming Ellen G. White's writings, which separates it from bible_search and beliefs_search. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings like egw_get_chapter or egw_books, nor does it mention when not to use it. The usage context is clear but not fully articulated.

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