Search Zero

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying the data domains searched and the 'stored'/'signed-in user' scoping, but it does not disclose return shape, result grouping, or how the multi-source results are presented.

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 single tight sentence with a front-loaded verb and a compact enumeration of searchable content. Every word contributes to defining the tool's scope, with no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

Given the annotations cover safety and idempotency, the remaining gaps are when to choose this over the overlapping search_transcripts sibling and what the returned results actually look like. With no output schema and multiple searchable data types, the description is adequate for basic invocation but not fully complete for confident tool selection.

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 50%; after and before are documented in the schema, but q and limit_per_source are not described there. The description clarifies that q searches across the enumerated Zero sources, adding some meaning for q, but it does not explain time-boundary semantics or per-source limiting behavior, so it only partially compensates for the coverage 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?

The description starts with a specific verb ('Search') and names a concrete resource scope: the signed-in user's stored Zero content across meetings, tasks, transcript speaker blocks, contacts, prep notes, and morning briefs. This makes the tool's broad search purpose clear, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling 'search_transcripts' tool, which overlaps on transcript content.

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 phrase 'the signed-in user's stored Zero...' implies this is for user-scoped cross-source search rather than general or list-based retrieval. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over search_transcripts, list_meetings, list_tasks, or other sibling tools, leaving the selection mostly to inference.

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