Søk i Tua

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds useful return-format context (each hit returns S/ingress and the why-line) and a progressive-disclosure workflow, though it doesn't describe ranking or match-count behavior.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then usage triggers, then result granularity and workflow. Four short sentences with no filler; every sentence contributes routing or behavioral value.

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 read-only search tool whose annotations cover the safety profile and whose parameters are fully documented, the description supplies the missing pieces: when to reach for it, what a hit looks like, and how to drill down. Minor gaps remain around result ordering and paging, but nothing essential to correct invocation 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 description coverage is 100%, so limit, query, context, and project are already fully documented in the schema. The description's workflow note about levels touches on result depth but adds no parameter syntax beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (Søk) and resource (Tua-arkivet) plus explicit scope — across ALL projects and conversations. It also names the sibling tua_get as the follow-up step, so an agent can distinguish it from the detail-fetch tool without opening either schema.

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 concrete trigger conditions («hva har jeg om X», «finn det jeg lagde om X», eller når tidligere arbeid kan være relevant) and a directive to use it first. It also names the alternative/next tool (tua_get at level=M) and the sequencing rule (fetch M before L), leaving little to inference.

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