search_text

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds FTS5 query syntax and parameter defaults, but no behavioral traits such as pagination or return format. It does not contradict annotations, and the bar is lower due to rich annotation coverage.

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 structured with 'Args:' and uses clear, bullet-like lines. It is slightly verbose for the purpose but every sentence adds value, especially the query examples. No wasted words.

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 that an output schema exists, return values do not need to be described. The description covers all parameters and uses the FTS5 syntax detail effectively. It is complete for a search tool with good annotations and an output 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates. It explains each parameter: query with concrete FTS5 examples, start/end as ISO 8601, bundle_ids as allow-list, and limit range (1-100, default 20). This goes far beyond the raw schema.

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 clearly states 'Full-text search across OCR'd screen content,' using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_segments or get_frame, which target different aspects.

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 usage context (searching screen content) but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool instead of alternatives. No exclusions or alternative names are provided, so context is clear but not comparative.

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