search_code

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower; the description adds real behavioral detail on matching semantics (literal, case-sensitive) and the snapshot-handle lifecycle, including the caution to keep handles out of the answer. It stops short of describing result ordering or pagination 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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core behavior and no filler. The trailing 'Keep handles out of the answer' is terse and slightly ambiguous but earns its place as an operational caution.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation here. With matching semantics, snapshot modes, and the safety profile covered by annotations, the definition is nearly sufficient; only limit/pagination behavior is unaddressed.

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 must carry the load. It does explain query semantics (literal, case-sensitive) and snapshot modes, but says nothing about limit or project_id, leaving two of four parameters undocumented anywhere.

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 and resource ('Locate literal, case-sensitive code text') plus what is returned ('paths and lines'). It does not explicitly contrast itself with read_file or get_diff, but 'search' vs 'read' is a reasonably clear split for an agent.

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 snapshot guidance ('Omit snapshot for current code, use previous, or reuse an opaque handle') is useful mode-selection advice, but it is parameter usage rather than tool-selection guidance. There is no statement of when to prefer this over read_file or get_diff, so usage is only implied.

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