search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavior in the form of multi-source scope and per-result source citations, but says nothing about result limits, ranking, or pagination 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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler; the scope and the citation behavior are packed efficiently. It is under-specified for its complexity rather than verbose, but structurally sound.

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, so the description is the only signal about returns, and it only mentions citations without describing result shape, limits, or ordering. For a one-parameter search tool it is minimally adequate, but the overlap with 'search_wiki' and the bare query semantics leave real gaps.

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% and the single parameter 'query' is undocumented; the description does not compensate with any syntax, filter, or format guidance. Only the parameter's trivially obvious name carries meaning.

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 ("Search") and enumerates the resources it covers (wiki, entities, resource notes, cached repo docs), plus the output trait of per-result citations. It is clear on its own, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling 'search_wiki', which reads as a direct overlap for an agent choosing between them.

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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives despite an obvious sibling ('search_wiki') covering one of the listed sources. The agent must infer the routing decision on its own.

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