Search bookmarks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core matching behavior ('substring match') and that both title and URL are scanned, which is valuable. But it does not address case sensitivity, empty results, pagination, or that this is a read-only operation.

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 sentence with zero filler: the primary verb, target, and matching mode are front-loaded. Every word contributes meaningful guidance.

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 one-parameter search tool with no output schema, this is nearly complete: the invocation contract is fully described. Minor gaps like absence of result-format or no-match behavior are small given the simplicity, so it earns slightly above the minimum viable.

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% and the query parameter is already described as 'Text to find in title or URL'. The description adds little beyond the schema, only reinforcing the substring matching mode. Baseline 3 applies because the schema carries the load.

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 verb 'Search' with resource 'bookmarks' and mechanism 'substring match on title or URL' states exactly what the tool does. It is immediately distinguishable from siblings list_bookmarks (full collection) and add_bookmark (write operation).

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 matching semantics imply the use case: locate a bookmark by text in title or URL. However, it never explicitly states when not to use it, nor does it name list_bookmarks as the alternative for viewing all bookmarks, leaving routing between siblings to inference.

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