search_advanced

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the query languages but does not describe key behavioral traits such as what the tool returns (e.g., results format, error handling), performance considerations (e.g., rate limits, timeouts), or authentication needs. The description adds some context about query types but lacks essential operational details for an advanced search tool.

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 and well-structured, consisting of two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and usage guidelines. Each sentence adds value: the first states the action, and the second provides context for the query languages. There is no wasted text or unnecessary elaboration.

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 complexity of an advanced search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It explains the query languages but omits critical information such as the return format (e.g., what results look like), error conditions, or examples of successful use. Without annotations or output schema, the description should provide more context to guide effective tool invocation.

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?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so there are no parameters to document. The description does not need to compensate for any schema gaps. It appropriately focuses on the tool's functionality without redundant parameter information, earning a baseline score of 4 for zero parameters.

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 purpose: 'Perform an advanced search using Dataview DQL or JsonLogic.' It specifies the verb ('Perform an advanced search') and the resources/techniques involved (Dataview DQL, JsonLogic). However, it does not explicitly differentiate this from its sibling 'search_simple' beyond the 'advanced' qualifier, which is implied but not directly compared.

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 provides clear context on when to use each query language: 'Dataview is best for querying metadata and frontmatter (e.g., "TABLE FROM #tag"). JsonLogic is best for complex logical queries on note properties.' This offers guidance on selecting between the two options within the tool. However, it does not mention when to use this tool versus the sibling 'search_simple' or other alternatives, nor does it specify exclusions or prerequisites.

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