search_lines

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose meaningful behavior: case-insensitive substring matching across three specific text fields. However, it does not mention result ordering, pagination, empty-result behavior, or any access or rate-limit considerations, so there are clear gaps.

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 concise, front-loaded sentence. Every word adds meaning: case-insensitive, substring, and the three searched fields. There is no redundancy or filler.

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, the description covers the core matching behavior, but with no annotations and no output schema it should also clarify the role of lang, mention that matching lines are returned, and ideally point to alternatives. It is adequate but not 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only adds meaning to the query parameter by indicating which fields are searched. It provides no extra semantics for the lang or limit parameters, which are left entirely to the schema's default/min/max clues.

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 clear resource (lines), and the matching scope (native text, transliteration, English gloss). It distinguishes the tool from get_lines and random_line by describing a search behavior, though it does not explicitly contrast it with siblings.

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: when a case-insensitive substring search across those fields is needed. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling alternative to prefer, leaving the usage context implicit.

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