search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('Search') without any details on permissions, rate limits, result format, pagination, or error handling. For a search tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and to the point, though it could benefit from more detail given the tool's complexity. The structure is clear but overly brief for a tool with no annotations and low schema coverage.

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 tool's moderate complexity (search operation), no annotations, low schema coverage (0%), but presence of an output schema, the description is minimally complete. It states the basic purpose but lacks details on behavior, parameters, and usage context. The output schema helps, but the description doesn't fully compensate for the gaps in annotations and schema.

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?

The input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'query' implicitly but doesn't explain what the query parameter expects (e.g., keywords, filters, syntax). Since schema coverage is low, the description adds minimal value beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for adequate but incomplete coverage.

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 'Search for content across the knowledge base' states a clear verb ('Search') and resource ('content across the knowledge base'), but it's vague about what 'content' specifically means and doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'search_notes' or 'fetch'. It provides a basic purpose but lacks specificity.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'search_notes', 'fetch', and 'read_content' available, there's no indication of what makes this search tool unique or when it's preferred over other search or retrieval tools. It's a generic statement with no usage context.

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