search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool returns matching passages with relevance scoring, which communicates the core output behavior. However, it does not mention pagination, behavior for empty results, rate limits, or that this is a read-only operation, though 'search' strongly implies it.

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 two short sentences with no redundant words. The core action and result are front-loaded, and every word earns its place.

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?

The tool is a straightforward full-text search, and the schema fully documents all parameters. However, there is no output schema and the description only vaguely explains the return value as 'matching passages with relevance scoring'; it does not describe result count limits, categories filtering behavior, or error cases.

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 adds the context that the query is for full-text search but does not provide additional meaning for the limit or categories parameters beyond what the schema already states.

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 identifies a full-text search operation over the Sefaria library and states that it returns matching passages with relevance scoring. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_text or get_ref_topic_links, which are not full-text searches, though it does not explicitly name any sibling.

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?

No explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as find_refs or get_word_completion. The phrase 'full-text search' implies usage for finding passages by keyword, but there are no exclusion conditions, prerequisites, or alternative tool references.

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