search_evidence

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavior disclosure. It usefully notes that the data is cached and that snippets with source URLs are returned, but it does not explain search semantics, limit handling, or behavior when no matches are found. It is adequate but not detailed.

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?

A single sentence with no filler: it front-loads the action and resource, then states the return format. Every phrase adds value and the structure is easy to parse quickly.

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 simple two-parameter search tool with an output schema, the description covers the core purpose and return shape. However, the absence of any parameter-level documentation and any guidance on when to use it relative to sibling tools leaves notable gaps for the agent.

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 0%, so the description needs to compensate. It clarifies that the query is a keyword search, but the limit parameter is completely undocumented in both the schema and the description. The tool does not sufficiently bridge the parameter documentation gap.

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 action (keyword search), a specific resource (cached resume.json and llms.txt), and the result (snippets with source URLs). This makes it clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like list_projects and get_resume_summary, which do not perform keyword search.

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 implies it should be used when the agent needs to search over the cached evidence files, but it gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and does not mention alternatives. The context is reasonably clear, yet the agent must infer the placement among sibling tools.

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