Search saved quotations

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value the annotations cannot: results are ranked, and each hit carries the passage, its source authority, and a pincite — important since there is no output schema. It stops short of describing result ordering or pagination flow, which the schema partly covers.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then usage rule, then the verbatim tip, then the sibling redirect. No sentence restates the schema or wastes space.

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 three-parameter, zero-required search tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers scope, selection criteria, query-matching behavior, and what each result returns. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds a real semantic not present in the schema: quoted phrases are matched verbatim. That meaningfully changes how an agent should construct the query string, going beyond the schema's "Language to find".

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 the text of every saved quotation"), adds the ranking behavior, and explicitly distinguishes itself from search_library by scope. An agent can tell immediately that this covers only user-saved quotations, not the full library.

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?

Gives an explicit selection rule ("when the user wants language to quote rather than an authority to cite") and names the alternative tool with the condition that selects it (full text of opinions/statutes → search_library). It also supplies a search-strategy tip: quoting a phrase forces verbatim matching.

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