search-journals

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states the search scope (all pages of all journals) and return value (page matched). It implies a read-only operation, but does not explicitly state safety or performance considerations. However, the behavior is adequately described for a search 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 consists of two clear, front-loaded sentences with no superfluous information. It efficiently conveys the action and output usage.

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?

The tool is simple (search journals), and the description covers its main behavior and output. It links to list-journals for reading. No output schema exists, but the description explains the return format. It does not specify details like case sensitivity or result limits, but is reasonably complete for its purpose.

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 the schema already documents both parameters (searchQuery, searchType) with descriptions. The description does not add new parameter meanings beyond what is in the schema, so baseline of 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 searches journal entries for specific content/keywords and returns the matched page. It distinguishes itself from sibling search tools (e.g., search-actor-contents, search-compendium) by specifically targeting journals and linking to list-journals for reading results.

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 explains when to use the tool (to search journals) and how to use the result (via list-journals with journalId+pageId). It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare to other search tools, but the usage context is clear.

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