Search Entries Tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says nothing about whether this is a read-only operation, how results are ranked or ordered, whether search is scoped to a feed or category, or how the limit interacts with result quality. For a no-annotation tool this is a substantial gap.

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?

A single short, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though the terseness is also what leaves the behavioral gaps unaddressed.

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 an output schema present and full schema coverage, the description does not need to explain return values, which keeps it near adequate. However, it omits scope and read-only/safety context for a tool with no annotations, leaving an agent to infer too much.

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% — the schema already documents the limit range/default and FTS5 syntax support. The description's mention of 'titles and content' adds minor meaning by naming the searchable fields, but nothing about syntax or result semantics beyond the 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 states a specific verb+resource combination ('Full-text search across entry titles and content') and even names the searched fields, which distinguishes it reasonably well from list_entries_tool. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with that sibling, so the agent must infer the distinction.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of the alternative list_entries_tool, and no statement of scope (all feeds? one feed? one category?). The agent gets no help deciding between searching and listing.

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