search_fulltext

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable contextual behavior beyond annotations: it requires build_index(type='fulltext') to be run first and returns 'highlighted text snippets.' This is useful operational information not present in the schema or annotations.

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 three sentences with no filler. The primary action is first, usage guidance follows, and the prerequisite is tucked in at the end. Every sentence adds operational value.

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?

For a simple read-only search with an output schema and safety annotations, this description is nearly complete: it explains scope, result format, and required precondition. It is missing only minor clarifications such as limit semantics or behavior when the fulltext index is absent.

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 gives meaning to the query parameter ('specific term, method, drug, or concept'), but the limit parameter is never explained—especially its unusual dual string/integer type. This is a meaningful gap for a tool with only two parameters.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Search the full text of indexed PDFs in your library.' It clearly distinguishes itself from title/abstract-level searching by saying 'not just titles/abstracts,' which separates it from sibling tools like search_items.

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?

It explicitly says when to use the tool: 'when the user wants to find papers that mention a specific term, method, drug, or concept in their body text.' It also highlights the exclusion of titles/abstracts and a prerequisite (build_index). However, it does not explicitly name an alternative tool or state when not to use it.

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