search_functions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds the specific search method (FTS5 full-text search with relevance ranking), providing behavioral detail beyond annotations. No contradiction.

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?

Single sentence, 13 words, front-loaded with key verb and resource. Every word earns its place — no filler or redundancy.

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 3-parameter search tool without output schema, the description covers search mechanism and ranking. It does not detail return format or pagination, but given the simplicity and annotations, it's mostly 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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all 3 parameters. The description mentions 'search by name or purpose', which aligns with search_string but adds no new parameter-level meaning. The mention of 'relevance ranking' gives context but doesn't enhance parameter semantics directly. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description starts with 'Search tracked functions' — a specific verb and resource. Qualifies with 'by name or purpose using FTS5 full-text search with relevance ranking', clearly differentiating from sibling search tools targeting other entities (directives, modules, notes, etc.).

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 implicitly states usage for searching functions. No explicit when-not or alternatives, but the context of sibling tools makes it clear that similar tools exist for other entities. A small improvement would be to mention alternatives, but not required for clarity.

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