hub_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the search scope (every card, entire journal, archived months), the return format (matching lines with location), and implicitly that it is a read-only operation. It does not mention truncation behavior or performance, but the schema's `full` parameter covers the truncation detail, and there is no destructive behavior to disclose.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the first states purpose, the second provides usage guidance, the third adds an additional use case. No filler or 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 2-parameter read-only search tool with no output schema, the description covers what, when, and why. It differentiates from siblings and explains the scope. The only minor omission is a note about truncation, but that is handled by the schema, so the description is complete for its complexity.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by giving example query types ('a keyword, a task id or a name') and clarifies that the search is full-text, which goes beyond the schema's plain 'case-insensitive substring' description.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Full-text search across every project card and the entire journal, archived months included.' It clearly states the return value ('each matching line with its location') and distinguishes itself from hub_task_list by explaining that search is the right approach when you know a keyword but not the owning project.

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?

Explicit guidance is given: 'START HERE whenever you know a keyword, a task id or a name but not which project owns it.' It directly names the alternative (hub_task_list) and explains why searching once is better than guessing, plus adds a second use case ('find where something was discussed or decided').

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