search_in_document

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the search is case-insensitive (implied from schema), returns matching nodes with optional context, and warns about potential large outputs. However, it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens when no matches are found. The WARNING about size is helpful but incomplete.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences. The first sentence states the core functionality, and the second provides an important operational warning. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured by separating purpose from behavioral notes.

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 search tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and one important behavioral warning, but lacks information about output format, error handling, authentication, and comparison with sibling tools. The 100% schema coverage helps, but the description itself is incomplete for a complex tool.

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 the schema already documents all 7 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond what's in the schema - it mentions 'optional parent context and children' which corresponds to 'parent_levels' and 'include_children' parameters, but doesn't provide additional semantic context. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Search for text in a Dynalist document. Returns matching nodes with optional parent context and children.' It specifies the verb ('search'), resource ('Dynalist document'), and output characteristics. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling 'search_documents' tool, which appears to search across documents rather than within one.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_documents' or other document manipulation tools. The WARNING about many matches is operational rather than usage guidance. There's no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or comparison with sibling tools.

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