Find code by intent (BM25, no embeddings)

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: ranking by BM25, matching on tokenized names/kinds/filenames, and that it 'Matches WORDING, not meaning.' This goes beyond simple purpose and helps set expectations. However, it does not mention output format, whether an index must be pre-built, or any side effects, so it is not a perfect 5.

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, highly efficient, and front-loaded with the main purpose. Every clause adds value: the scenario, the ranking mechanism, the example, and the sibling alternatives. No redundant or filler content.

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 complexity of a search tool and absence of an output schema, the description covers purpose, behavior, and alternatives, plus an illustrative example. It does not explicitly mention prerequisites (e.g., whether indexing must have occurred) or return value structure, but these are not critical for selecting/invoking the tool. Slightly more context on outputs/limits would round it out.

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?

The input schema already covers both parameters with full descriptions (100% coverage). The description reinforces the query semantics with the phrase 'a words query' and an example, but does not add significantly more meaning beyond the schema. Thus baseline 3 is appropriate.

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's purpose: search for code by describing intent ('Know WHAT the code does but not its name'). It specifies the mechanism (BM25 over tokenized names, kinds, filenames) and provides a concrete example ('validate user email' surfaces validateEmail / emailValidator), which fully distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_symbols and search_code.

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?

Usage is explicitly contextualized: 'Know WHAT the code does but not its name' sets the trigger. It also gives direct alternatives: 'Exact/partial name → search_symbols; literal string → search_code.' This makes it easy for an agent to decide when to pick this tool over siblings.

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