bookmark_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that bookmarks can be searched by keyword/tags, without revealing matching semantics (AND vs OR), the effect of limit, or what the response looks like. Even the read-only nature is only implied by the verb 'search,' so this is minimal.

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 six-word sentence with no filler, front-loading the purpose. It is very concise, though the brevity forces all other information to be omitted. This earns a 4.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the one-line description leaves the agent to infer result format, pagination/limit behavior, and the relationship between query and tags. It covers only the most basic purpose, so it is not complete for a tool with sibling alternatives.

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 description maps query to 'keyword' and tags to 'tags,' adding a little meaning beyond the schema, which has no property descriptions (0% coverage). However, it says nothing about the limit parameter or how keyword and tags combine (the 'and/or' hints at it). This partially compensates for the schema's silence but not fully.

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?

Clear: 'Search bookmarks' names the resource and operation, and 'by keyword and/or tags' specifies the search criteria. It distinguishes itself from sibling bookmark_list (which likely lists all) and history_search (which searches history) by its filter parameters, though it doesn't explicitly name any sibling. A 4 is warranted because it is clear but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus bookmark_list, history_search, or the generic search. The only implied context is that it handles bookmark search by keyword/tags. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, so this is scored 2.

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