jev_search

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

Annotations already establish readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive, so the description's real value is the extra disclosure: selected lines 'leave the machine' (data egress/privacy) and a real search 'costs money'. It also reveals the >=0.5 match threshold. It stops short of stating auth/key requirements, which the dry_run note only implies.

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 operation, then the cost/privacy caveat. Two tight sentences with no wasted filler, though the trailing return-shape sentence partially duplicates the output schema.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, yet the description still sketches the probability/match shape. Combined with the cost and data-egress warnings, an agent has enough to call this correctly, though key/auth prerequisites remain unstated.

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 all four parameters are already documented in the schema, making 3 the baseline. The description does not add syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides for query/files/top_k/dry_run.

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 (semantic search) and resource (lines of small text files), with scope qualifiers (small, line-level). The word 'complementary' is unexplained but the core operation is unambiguous. No siblings exist to differentiate from.

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 context is implied rather than stated: 'a real search costs money' and the dry_run parameter hint that agents should preview before paying, but there is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-alternatives guidance. With no sibling tools, there is little to route between, so 3 is fair.

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