carrel_search

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

No annotations exist, so the description bears the full disclosure burden. It usefully discloses the prerequisite index run and the on-disk store, but says nothing about result ordering/relevance, pagination behavior beyond the schema's limit, or what a result entry looks like. For a read-only search this is adequate but not rich.

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 short sentences with zero filler; the operation comes first and the prerequisite second. Nothing could be removed without losing 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?

With no output schema and six parameters, the description should hint at the return shape or result structure, which it does not. Parameter coverage is fully handled by the schema and the prerequisite is covered, but the output side is left entirely to inference.

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%, so all six parameters including the meta filter syntax and root default are already documented in the schema. The description adds no extra parameter meaning (e.g. how query interacts with meta/tags), so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Full-text search the carrel desk index (.carrel/carrel.db)'. It also locates the resource precisely, which separates it from carrel_index (which builds the index) even though no sibling is named outright.

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?

Provides a concrete prerequisite — 'Requires a prior `carrel index` run' — which is the main condition that determines whether calling this tool works. It gives no explicit exclusions or named alternatives among the 14 siblings (e.g. carrel_refs, carrel_meta), so it falls short of the top bar.

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