search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the filter-then-rank order, the absence of body text in results, the specific fields returned, and the as_of behavior for full state. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond a generic 'search' claim, though it doesn't mention side effects (none expected for a read-only operation) or pagination details.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately followed by the most critical behavioral and output details. Every clause earns its place; no fluff or repetition of schema fields.

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?

Without an output schema, the description adequately explains the return shape (lex_id, dates, snippet, hash) and the as_of option. It covers the main behavior for a search tool, though it doesn't mention default limit behavior or snippet generation details—but these are minor and largely inferable from the schema. Overall, it is complete for practical use.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that filters ('works', 'publisher', 'document_type') run before ranking, and by linking 'as_of' to full state retrieval. This enriches the schema's bare parameter descriptions, justifying a score above baseline.

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 clearly identifies this as a full-text search tool with a specific pipeline ('filtered-then-ranked') and distinct output (hits without body text, listing exact fields). This distinguishes it from siblings like provenance, timeline, and diff, which serve different purposes.

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 usage for full-text search needs and clarifies that filters always run before ranking, which informs query construction. It also notes 'Full state via as_of,' guiding users to the as_of parameter for historical state, though it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name alternative tools.

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