search_findings

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

Description states behavior beyond schema: no confirmation needed (read operation), mentions performance ('fast'), and explains FTS5 supports boolean operators without defining them in the schema. It does not mention return shape or potential auth requirements, but the read safety is explicitly stated. Since annotations are absent, this fills the gap well.

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 a bit longer than necessary but highly organized with sections and bullets. It front-loads the core purpose, then provides actionable triggers, workflow position, and search tips. The extra length is justified by the practical guidance, though some text could be trimmed without loss.

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/search tool, this covers what it returns conceptually, when to use it, and how to craft queries. It doesn't explain the output structure since no output schema, but that is a gap given no return fields are defined. Also does not mention pagination or error cases. Overall sufficient for common use but not fully complete.

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 0%, but the description explains the query parameter and gives examples of FTS5 boolean syntax. For limit, it states default 10, which repeats the schema default. It adds semantics for query with advanced operators, but does not fully specify how limit behaves or format of results. This compensates well below 50% coverage.

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?

Description clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'Search findings using keyword (FTS5) search.' It differentiates from retrieve_findings by saying it is fast exact keyword matching, while retrieve_findings is thematic/semantic search. The title is null but description is strong.

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?

Provides AUTOMATIC TRIGGERS with bullet conditions and explicitly says when to use it FIRST, and when to switch to retrieve_findings if results are insufficient. That is explicit guidance with alternatives.

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