search

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the description carries the interesting behavior and does so well: non-blocking default, immediate search over currently available content, index-completeness reporting, and the two flags that alter that behavior. It does not mention performance cost of rerank/fuzzy or staleness implications of an incomplete index, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with purpose then behavior then the two tuning flags; there is little filler. The middle clauses are slightly dense but each sentence carries distinct information.

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 an output schema present, the description need not detail return values, and its coverage of async indexing and context-budget behavior is genuinely useful for a hybrid search tool. It is complete enough to invoke correctly, though the undocumented parameters leave an agent guessing on ranking controls.

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% across 8 parameters, so the description must compensate — and it only explains wait_for_indexing and compact (plus an implicit nod to top_k via 'top-k'). The hybrid-weight parameter alpha, fuzzy, rerank, and path_glob are left entirely opaque, which is a large gap for a search tool where alpha and rerank materially change results.

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 and resource — 'Hybrid full-text + vector search over the indexed filesystem' — and even summarizes the return shape (top-k chunks with file path, offset range, snippet). That is far more specific than a generic 'search', and the 'hybrid' qualifier implicitly separates it from keyword-only siblings like grep_search. It stops short of naming an alternative tool the way a 5 would.

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 operational guidance around indexing ('Does NOT block... Set wait_for_indexing=True to explicitly wait') and context-budget guidance ('Set compact=True'), which is real usage direction. However it never states when to choose this tool over siblings such as grep_search, deep_search, or search_symbols, so selection guidance is only implied.

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