search_fulltext

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: search is limited to previously fetched/cached documents, and results are returned as snippets with [term] markers. It does not discuss edge cases like empty caches or query syntax, but it adds meaningful non-obvious behavior.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The core action and unique cached-only constraint are front-loaded, and every clause adds useful information. It is concise without sacrificing clarity.

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?

Given the low parameter count, rich annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential invocation context: the cached-document prerequisite and the snippet output format. It is slightly light on query syntax expectations, but for a simple one-required-parameter search tool, the overall picture is sufficiently complete.

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 carries the burden of explaining parameters, but it only implies that 'query' is a term to search for via '[term] markers.' It never explicitly explains the query parameter semantics, matching behavior, or the meaning/effect of the 'limit' parameter. This leaves the agent reliant on parameter names alone.

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 names a specific action ('Search inside the PDF text'), a clear resource (text already extracted and cached by get_fulltext), and the output shape (snippets with [term] markers). It also distinguishes itself from get_fulltext and other siblings by noting it operates only on cached content, not raw PDFs.

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 clearly conveys when to use the tool: only after get_fulltext has fetched and cached a document, and only for documents someone previously fetched. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions (e.g., using search_reports for metadata searches), so it stops short of full when-not guidance.

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