chronicle_search

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety and open-world behavior are covered structurally. The description adds that matching occurs against event titles and details, which is helpful but not a deep behavioral disclosure. No contradiction exists.

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 tight sentences plus illustrative examples. The core action is front-loaded, and there is no filler or redundant content. Every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only search tool with a rich schema, an output schema, and safe annotations, the description covers the essential context. Optional filtering and limits are already documented in the schema, so their absence from the description is not a gap. It could be slightly stronger by mentioning the optional type filter, but it remains complete enough.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents query, type, and limit. The description's phrase 'matches against event titles and details' restates the query schema description, and the examples add flavor but little new semantic information. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search the Finch Chronicle by keyword.' It clarifies what is matched ('event titles and details') and includes concrete example queries, so an agent can tell this apart from sibling tools like chronicle_list or chronicle_stats without ambiguity.

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 explains when the tool is useful: 'finding when something specific happened' and gives realistic example queries. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the examples and search framing provide clear practical guidance.

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