keyword_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses sorting by relevance (TF), word-boundary matching, and error behavior for missing files. It does not mention edge cases like empty results or pagination, but it covers the key behavioral traits beyond basic operation.

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 well-structured with clear headings (<strategy>, <critical_rules>, <examples>, Args). Every section adds value, including concrete examples. It is appropriately sized for a complex tool with no redundant or filler content.

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 six parameters, no annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description fully covers the tool's operation, usage guidelines, parameter semantics, and even includes example inputs. It explains error behavior and provides enough context for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly without needing additional information.

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?

The schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), but the description compensates with an 'Args' section explaining each parameter (e.g., 'report_date: Report date (fiscal period end date)') and provides critical rules for keyword selection, including synonym expansion and cognitive translation. This adds substantial meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 verb and resource: 'Search parsed reports by keyword full-text search' and further specifies results orientation and matching behavior. It distinguishes from siblings by noting when to use get_report_pages for lengthy chapters instead, and positions itself as the tool for precise information extraction.

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 <strategy> section explicitly says when to invoke the tool ('Directly invoke this tool to find specific financial data, facts, or keyword discussions') and provides guidance on not pre-checking file existence. It also mentions an alternative tool (get_report_pages) for a different use case, giving clear when-to/when-not-to guidance.

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