search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context about search scope ('label or properties') and ordering ('Best matches first'), which goes beyond the schema. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe any side effects, though 'find' implies a non-destructive search. Given the simplicity of a search tool, this is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 concise (two sentences) and front-loads the core purpose. There is no fluff or redundant information. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly mentioning the limit parameter's behavior, but overall it is efficiently written.

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 tool's simplicity and the existence of an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and scope. However, it omits details about the limit parameter's effect on results and any potential edge cases (e.g., empty queries, case sensitivity). The description is not fully complete for an agent to know all behaviors without inspecting the schema further.

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 compensate. It explains the 'query' parameter implicitly by stating it searches text in labels/properties, but it does not explain the 'limit' parameter at all, despite it being present with a default. The description adds some meaning for query but fails to clarify limit's purpose or behavior, leaving a gap for agents.

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 a specific action ('Find nodes') on a specific resource ('nodes') with a clear criterion ('by text in their label or properties'). It also mentions result ordering ('Best matches first'), which differentiates it from sibling tools like get_node (exact retrieval) or neighbors (graph traversal). This is a precise, unambiguous purpose.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: when you need to find nodes by text content. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, though the sibling list implies that other tools serve different purposes (e.g., get_node for exact IDs). This is clear context without exclusions, so it earns a 4.

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