search_instructions

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. 'FTS5' is a genuine hint that the query is a full-text match expression rather than a substring, but nothing is said about result ordering/ranking, pagination behavior, or the returned record shape for a read tool with no output schema.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and mechanism lead. It is efficient, though arguably under-sized for a tool whose sibling set makes disambiguation the main risk.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description is the only place to learn about result ranking, default-limit semantics, and the instruction/snippet distinction, and it covers none of these. For a 3-parameter search tool in a crowded sibling set, this leaves meaningful gaps.

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 100%, so limit, query, and project are already documented in the schema. The description adds only the 'FTS5' hint, which marginally informs how the required query string should be composed but does not clarify filter interaction (e.g., whether project narrows before or after FTS matching).

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 verb and resource ('Search instruction recipes and command snippets') and adds the retrieval mechanism (FTS5), so the agent knows this is full-text search over the instruction store. It does not name or differentiate itself from siblings like search_entries or list_instructions, so an agent must infer that the target corpus is instructions rather than general entries.

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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no alternatives. With siblings such as list_instructions, get_instruction, and search_entries present, an agent receives nothing about when full-text instruction search beats enumerating or fetching by id.

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