search_metadata

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and discloses important behavioral traits: it is fast, searches personal plus all group/shared libraries by default, and deliberately excludes PDFs and notes. It doesn't describe return shape or match semantics, but the key scope and limitation boundaries are clear.

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?

Three sentences with no filler: each sentence adds necessary scope, exclusions, alternatives, or invocation guidance. The most important limitation is front-loaded with 'does NOT search inside PDFs or notes.'

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?

For a simple search tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the main operational needs: search fields, default scope, scoping parameter, and alternatives. It omits a few details like limit semantics and result-return expectations, but nothing critical blocks correct use.

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%, but the description compensates by defining the query semantics (titles, abstracts, creator names) and explaining library_id (scope to one library, see list_libraries). The limit parameter is not described in prose, though its schema default is visible.

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: 'search over item titles, abstracts, and creator names.' It also explicitly distinguishes itself from full-text search, so an agent can tell what this tool does and does not cover.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance ('quickly locating an item you already know roughly') and clear alternatives for content search. Minor deduction because it names 'search_fulltext', which is not present in the sibling list, making the alternative routing slightly unreliable.

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