search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly reveals case-insensitive substring matching, the scoping behavior of `file`, and the return shape (full entry blocks with id + file). It does not mention edge cases like no-match behavior or auth, but the core behavior is well covered.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and no filler. Every phrase adds value: case-insensitivity, target fields, optional scoping, and return format are all packed in efficiently.

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 is simple, has an output schema, and the description covers search scope, matching semantics, and return shape. It is slightly incomplete on edge-case behavior and any usage restrictions, but nothing essential for a correct invocation is missing.

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 compensate. It explains the `file` parameter with a concrete example and clarifies that the query is a substring search over specific fields. It does not explicitly describe the `query` parameter by name, but the semantics are directly inferable from the first sentence.

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 names a specific verb ('search'), a resource ('entry titles, bodies, tags and status'), and precise semantics (case-insensitive substring). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_all and update, so an agent knows what it does without opening the 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?

It gives clear context for when to use the tool—searching across entry fields with an optional file scope—and even hints at a downstream workflow ('ready to feed update'). It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tool conditions, but the context is strong enough for correct selection.

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