search_entries_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only states that it performs full-text search across titles and content, but does not mention details like FTS5 syntax support, result ranking, or limitations. The schema notes FTS5 syntax, but the description itself adds no behavioral context beyond its one-line function.

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 a single concise sentence with no superfluous words. It immediately states the tool's purpose, making it easy to scan and understand.

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 search tool with two parameters and an output schema, the description is fairly complete. It tells users what the tool does, and the schema covers the parameter details. It lacks advanced usage context (e.g., when to use over list_entries_tool), but the core functionality is clearly conveyed, and the output schema reduces the need to explain return values.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter explanations, but the schema already documents the 'query' and 'limit' parameters sufficiently, including the FTS5 syntax hint and the default limit of 50.

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 'Full-text search across entry titles and content' uses a specific verb (search), specifies the resource (entries), and denotes the scope (titles and content). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_entries_tool or read_entry_tool, which perform different operations.

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. It does not mention cases where list_entries_tool would be more appropriate, nor does it explain any exclusions or prerequisites. The helpful context is left entirely to the schema and user inference.

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