Search across every project

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint; the description adds substantial behavior beyond that — relevance ranking, independent term matching, phrase quoting, English/Turkish stemming, substring fallback, snippet-per-hit, default limit of 30, and explicit exclusions (file paths and project names are not searched). It also discloses the non-obvious rule that a project filter still returns account-wide notes.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and ranking before tactical detail, and no sentence is filler — every clause is actionable query guidance. It is dense to the point of being run-on (backticks, parentheticals, and semicolons stacked in one paragraph), which slightly hurts scanability but not information value.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries return-shape duty and delivers: ranked hits, snippets from the matching part, and a capped result count. Combined with the query-syntax and filter rules, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly on the first try.

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 60%, and the description compensates well for the gaps: it explains the kinds filter with use-case framing ('dead_end = has this been tried?'), the project filter's edge case, the limit default, and query syntax (stemming, quoting, minimum 3-character identifiers). The `model` parameter gets no description text, though the schema itself carries a usable example.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource set — 'Full-text search over tasks, log entries and notes across ALL your projects, ranked by relevance' — and explicitly states scope (all projects) and ranking behavior. An agent can immediately distinguish this from siblings like get_context, list_tasks, or get_context_note, which retrieve rather than search.

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?

Unusually explicit about when to use filters vs not: 'Filters narrow, never search' and 'Leave both out unless the question has a shape'. It also gives failure-recovery guidance ('if a sentence finds nothing, retry with only the distinctive identifiers') and a language rule ('ask in the language the log is written in'). No sibling routing is given, but the when/when-not conditions are exhaustively covered.

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