Search Pages

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does a good job by revealing that this is lexical PostgreSQL FTS and that stopwords will cause empty results, which is an important edge case. It could additionally mention result ordering or access restrictions, but the core matching behavior is transparent.

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 tight sentences with no filler. The main action and search method are front-loaded, and the stopword caveat earns its place as an important behavioral warning.

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?

The description is sufficient for a simple search tool, especially since an output schema exists and parameter docs are complete. It lacks explicit guidance on sorting/relevance or when to use it instead of retrieval tools, but the combination of description and schema covers the essential behavior.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining that the query parameter expects meaningful, non-stopword terms and warns about zero-result behavior for empty-meaning words.

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 clearly states the tool's verb and resource: 'Searches pages by keyword (full-text search).' It is specific enough to distinguish from page CRUD tools, though it does not explicitly name or differentiate sibling search/list tools.

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 gives useful querying guidance: use meaningful words, stopwords return no results. However, it never explicitly says when to prefer this tool over siblings like get_page, list_child_pages, or list_recent_pages; the usage is only implied by 'keyword search.'

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