datacore_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action 'Search', which implies read-only, but does not explicitly confirm non-destructiveness, explain result format, or mention any potential side effects (e.g., semantic search may have performance or requirement implications). The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the core action.

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, front-loaded sentence that is extremely concise and to the point. Every word contributes meaning, and there is no redundant or verbose language.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not mention the available search methods (keyword vs semantic), the scope filtering, or the limit parameter. It also does not describe what the search results will contain or any pagination/sorting behavior. This leaves the agent under-informed for selecting and invoking the tool with appropriate arguments.

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 75%, so the schema already documents query, limit, and method. The description adds 'journal entries and knowledge notes' which aligns with the scope enum values, but does not explain the scope parameter or provide meaningful enrichment. It largely repeats what the schema describes, so it meets the baseline but does not compensate for the remaining 25% gap (scope).

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 function: 'Search journal entries and knowledge notes by keyword'. The verb 'search' is specific, the resources are named (journal entries and knowledge notes), and it differentiates from sibling tools like datacore_capture or datacore_ingest which perform different actions.

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 implies usage for searching, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. While it is obvious from the name and description that this is the search tool among the siblings, there is no guidance on when to choose keyword vs semantic search or which scope to use. The mention of 'by keyword' could mislead users into thinking semantic search is not supported.

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