search_vault

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry behavior. It does so by saying the tool searches a synced Notion source and returns only titles and URLs, not full content. This is meaningful behavioral transparency, but it leaves out details like rate limits, staleness, and search coverage, so it isn't quite a 5.

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?

Two sentences with no dead weight. The first states the action and resource; the second states return limits and routes to get_page. Information density is high and the details are in order of importance.

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?

A single-parameter search tool with no output schema; the description sufficiently covers what to pass, what to expect back, and the upstream alternative for full content. There's nothing critical missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 100% and the schema already explains query as 'Search term, e.g. a project name or topic.' The description's phrase 'keyword or topic' restates the schema rather than adding new semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 starts with a clear verb and resource — search Felix's AI OS for pages matching a keyword or topic. It explicitly states what is returned (titles and URLs) and what it is not (full content), distinguishing it from get_page.

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?

It gives clear context for when to search — when you need titles/URLs of pages matching a keyword — and explicitly points to get_page for full content. However, it doesn't mention when list_projects or get_project_status might be preferable, so exclusions are not exhaustive.

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