aoci_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose real behavior: it states the return content (volume_id plus canonical object identity) and the side effect ('does not modify formal cognition or Baseline, but may append a local audit record'). What's missing is any statement about permissions, result limits, or what 'Legacy behavior is unchanged' concretely means.

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?

Purpose and usage guidance are front-loaded, which is good, but the middle sentence stacks internal jargon ('Volumes v1', 'canonical object identity', 'Legacy behavior is unchanged') whose meaning isn't recoverable from the description. Every sentence is doing something, but several are opaque rather than efficient.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description partially compensates by naming what is returned and flagging the audit-record side effect. However, for a search tool with three optional parameters and zero annotations, it leaves key operational questions open: result caps, ranking, read-vs-write safety when the local audit record is appended, and what changes under 'Legacy behavior'.

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%, so keyword, tag_filter, and the scope enum are already documented. The description restates the scope options (all, project, meta, code, database) but adds no matching rules, formats, or interaction between keyword and tag_filter beyond what the schema says. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Search Entry content by keyword and/or tag', and distinguishes itself from aoci_overview by warning not to substitute it for a complete Overview. Domain terms like 'Entry' and 'Volumes v1' are opaque without context, but the core action is unambiguous.

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?

Gives explicit conditions ('when the target is unknown, for local uncertainty, or on explicit request') and one exclusion against aoci_overview, which is more than most definitions. It stops short of naming aoci_get_entries as the direct-lookup alternative, so the when-not-this-tool picture is incomplete.

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