Search: query

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no further behavioral context such as authentication requirements, result format, rate limits, or how the public vs. authenticated endpoint behaves. It contributes nothing beyond the structured fields.

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 single sentence is concise with no wasted words, but it is under-specified rather than optimally structured. There is no front-loading of key constraints or grouping of information to help an agent quickly parse intent.

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 complex search tool with nine parameters and no output schema, the description is inadequate: it does not state what corpus is searched, how results are shaped, or how it relates to sibling search tools. The schema compensates for parameter documentation, but the description is far too thin for the tool's complexity.

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 100%, and all nine parameters (text, filter, sort, entities, etc.) are well documented in the schema itself. The description adds no meaning beyond what the schema already provides, which is the baseline 3 when the schema carries the full load.

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 'Run a search query' is essentially a restatement of the tool name and title, adding no specificity about what is being searched (entities, indexed data, etc.) or the scope. It does not differentiate from sibling search tools like search_similar, search_purge, search_rehydrate, or search_audit.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_similar or search_audit, nor any prerequisites or exclusions mentioned. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the name.

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