search

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions fuzzy matching but lacks details on read-only nature, authentication needs, or side effects. Minimal disclosure beyond the basic function.

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?

Description is extremely concise: two short sentences front-load the purpose and matching method. Every word adds value with no 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 simple search tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the entity, fields, and matching type. It does not detail return format or defaults, but the schema covers limit default. Adequately complete for its simplicity.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds value by listing the searchable fields in natural language, but it largely mirrors the schema. 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 clearly specifies the tool searches across all links in SupaSidebar by name, URL, notes, or tags, with fuzzy matching. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_links (lists all) and add_link (creates).

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as list_links or web_search. The description implies usage for searching links but does not state exclusions or prerequisites.

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