full_text_search

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 results are 'relevance-ranked' and searches across multiple fields, which is useful. However, it does not mention other behavioral traits such as case sensitivity, pagination, or behavior with no results. It is moderately transparent but could be more comprehensive.

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 concise at two sentences, with no wasted words. The first sentence states the core functionality, and the second provides concrete usage examples. It is well-structured and front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool has 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is adequate for basic understanding but lacks details on return format, parameter constraints, and edge cases. It covers the purpose and usage examples but is not fully complete for complex queries.

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 coverage is 50% (only query has a description). The description itself does not elaborate on parameters like 'limit' or provide additional meaning beyond the schema. It adds no parameter-specific information, so it fails to compensate for the schema's lack of coverage.

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 'Relevance-ranked free-text search across every record's title, location and description.' It specifies the verb (search), resource (records), and scope (title, location, description), and differentiates from sibling tools like 'search_sightings' by providing example use cases ('thematic digs') and specific query terms.

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 explicitly provides example use cases ('for thematic digs') and query terms ('FLIR', 'orb', 'triangular'), which helps the agent understand when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives among the sibling tools.

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