source.search

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states that it does full-text search over ingested sources. It does not describe result format, pagination, query syntax, authorization needs, or performance characteristics. This minimal information leaves the agent uninformed about how the tool actually behaves.

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 sentence, which could be concise, but it fails to convey necessary information. Given the complexity of four parameters and the lack of schema documentation, the description is under-specified rather than effectively concise. It does not earn its place because it omits critical details.

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 has four parameters, no schema descriptions, no output schema, and no annotations. The description only covers the basic purpose. It is completely inadequate for an agent to understand input requirements, return values, or edge cases, making it very incomplete.

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 0% and the description adds no parameter explanations. The four parameters (limit, query, project_id, project_root) have no semantics clarified anywhere. The agent cannot infer what each parameter does or how to use them correctly.

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 over ingested raw sources' clearly states the verb (search), the resource (raw sources), and the scope (ingested). This distinguishes it from sibling source tools like source.ingest, source.list, and source.get, as well as from search tools in other domains (memory.search, kb.search).

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as memory.search or kb.search. There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or exclusions. The agent receives no contextual hints for choosing this tool over siblings.

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