Search local scope knowledge

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower; the description adds that the corpus is local, previously validated knowledge rather than live vendor docs. It does not discuss result ranking, empty-store behavior, or how limit interacts with relevance.

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: first states what is searched, second states the prerequisite and the payoff. No filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded.

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 format need not be explained, and annotations cover the read-only/local profile. The remaining gap is the undocumented resource parameter, which a caller cannot reason about from description or schema alone.

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 only 33%: query is documented with good examples, but resource is a bare nullable string with no meaning anywhere, and limit is only bounded by min/max/default. With low coverage the description is expected to compensate, and it adds nothing about what resource scopes to or how limit affects results.

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?

Specific verb+resource: it searches a local, persisted knowledge store made of saved manuals, HELP headers, and previously working SCPI. The phrase 'already worked on this box' cleanly separates it from fetch_manual (fetch new) and suggest_scpi (guess/generate), so an agent can pick it without opening sibling schemas.

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?

Explicit prerequisite: 'Call learn_instrument / fetch_manual first,' which tells the agent this is a reuse step, not a discovery step. It names the complementary tools, but does not state when NOT to use it (e.g., if nothing has been learned yet) or what happens on an empty store.

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