search_local

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/non-destructive/non-open-world, but the description adds genuinely new context: the source 'may be offline' and that snippets are unreliable for amounts/scope. It also hints at the return shape; the output schema already handles return values, so this is a minor redundancy rather than a gap.

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?

Front-loads purpose, then adds query style, then the follow-up instruction, then the sibling routing. Every sentence carries distinct information with no filler, and the critical 'do not answer from snippets' caveat is prominent.

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 an output schema present, the description need not enumerate return fields, yet it briefly does so. Combined with the offline caveat and the read_local_artifact/workspace_recall routing, an agent has everything needed to select and invoke it correctly.

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 0% with two parameters (query, limit) documented nowhere structurally. The description gives keyword-style guidance for query ('factual keywords such as ExampleCo 견적서'), but says nothing about the limit parameter or the optional/defaulted nature of query, leaving half the surface undocumented despite the low coverage.

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?

States a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('original work documents') and scopes it to 'explicitly allowed local/SSD roots'. It actively distinguishes itself from siblings by naming workspace_recall for session conversations and read_local_artifact for follow-up reads.

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 routing: use keyword queries here to find candidates, do not answer from snippets, and instead call read_local_artifact; session conversations route to workspace_recall. Both the when-to-use and the alternatives are named with their triggering conditions.

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