viwoods_search_handwriting

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

Annotations already declare this a safe, idempotent, closed-world read, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: dependence on paperd's index file, that coverage is limited to pages already read, newest-page-first ordering, and the shape of each hit (reference, page, snippet) plus total_matches. No contradiction with the readOnly/destructive hints.

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?

One dense paragraph, front-loaded with the purpose, with every clause carrying information (index dependency, ordering, date syntax, citation guidance, handoff). It is slightly run-on and could be broken into purpose/coverage/filters/next-step, but there is no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be re-explained, and the description still supplies the coverage limits, filter semantics, ordering, and the sibling handoff an agent needs to call this correctly. Nothing material is missing beyond the undocumented 'limit' default, which the schema already carries.

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%, so the description must carry the load, and it does for three of four params: query (words in handwriting), and since/until with concrete accepted forms (date, date+time, today, yesterday, 7d/2w/12h/3m). Only 'limit' is left unexplained, a small gap given the otherwise strong compensation.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — find words in the handwriting of Viwoods Paper notebooks — and immediately scopes it to what paperd's index actually read. It names the sibling it hands off to (viwoods_show_match), so an agent can separate it from viwoods_read_pages and viwoods_show_match without opening either schema.

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?

Gives clear operating context (requires VIWOODS_MCP_INDEX and only covers pages paperd has indexed) and routes the 'show the user the spot' case to viwoods_show_match. It also instructs to cite the reference rather than retell the page. It stops short of an explicit when-not versus viwoods_read_pages, but the practical routing is unambiguous.

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