search

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It contributes one genuinely valuable disclosure — that returned page text is untrusted source content — but says nothing about read-only semantics, result limits, pagination, or what 'mode' changes. Useful but far from complete for an annotation-free 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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with the safety caveat appended. Nothing is wasted, though the extreme brevity borders on under-specification given the undocumented parameters.

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?

With three parameters at 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the definition should do much more. It omits what mode does, how many results come back and in what form, and how this differs from the sibling retrieval tools.

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 all three parameters (query, mode with default 'auto', num_results) are undocumented. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema — in particular the 'mode' parameter's valid values and effects are entirely opaque. Only the noun 'index' hints that query targets crawled content.

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 the user's crawled web index'. An agent knows exactly what is searched and whose data it is. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings get_contents or find_similar, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus get_contents or find_similar, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The description only implies usage through the word 'search'; the agent must infer routing from sibling names alone.

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