lipi_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It transparently discloses matching semantics (romanized and literal), return type and fields (SearchHit[] with path, name, score, snippet), and the empty-q behavior. It omits auth requirements or sort order, but the core behavior is well documented.

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 three tight sentences with no filler: operation and scope first, then concrete examples, then return behavior and edge case. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is largely complete: it explains query semantics, return shape, and an edge case. It does not mention authentication prerequisites or pagination, but the low complexity and clear sibling context make those omissions minor.

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 schema already covers q at 100%, so the baseline is a 3. The description adds meaningful extra value through concrete romanization examples ('mero' → 'मेरो') and the empty-query edge case, enriching what the schema alone communicates.

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 states a specific verb ('search'), a resource ('the vault'), and a distinctive behavior (romanized Devanagari matching with literal English fallback). It is clearly differentiated from sibling CRUD/list/read tools because it is the only search operation.

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 implies when to use the tool by framing it as search and showing query examples, but it never explicitly contrasts it with alternatives like lipi_list_notes or lipi_read_note_by_name, nor does it state when not to use it. Guidance is present but only implicit.

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