search_fulltext

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses the scope (all indexed PDFs) and the table searched, but lacks details on side effects (e.g., if it's destructive, read-only), authentication needs, rate limits, or resource impact. This is insufficient for a mutation-agnostic tool.

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 (5 lines), efficiently front-loaded with core purpose, and structured with clear args section. Every sentence contributes value without redundancy or padding.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and the existence of an output schema (so return values are covered), the description completely covers scope, usage context, and parameter explanations. No critical behavioral gaps remain for an informed selection among many search siblings.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by specifying that 'query' accepts space-separated keywords and explaining 'max_results' purpose and default. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare 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 clearly states the tool performs full-text keyword search across all indexed PDFs, searches a specific table, and explicitly distinguishes itself from title/abstract search, making it highly specific and differentiated from siblings.

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 when to use (for methodological details beyond titles/abstracts) and contrasts with title/abstract search, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools like search_library or search_literature.

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