Search the nectr library

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful disclosure beyond that: exactly which fields come back (ids, URLs, freshness, short summary) and, importantly, that page bodies are NOT returned, which steers agents to get_page for content.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the return shape, then the default behavior. No filler and no repetition of the title.

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 no output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden and does so adequately, including the negative case (no bodies). It omits pagination/result-count behavior and any note on empty results, which are minor gaps for a 2-param read tool.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented with defaults, bounds and the omit-to-list behavior. The description restates the omit-query semantics but adds no new syntax or format detail, so baseline 3 applies.

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 plus scope: 'Search the user's saved nectr pages by title or URL.' That clearly separates it from siblings like convert_url or list_projects, though it never names an alternative tool or explains how it differs from get_page when a page id is already known.

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 concrete context for the parameterless case ('Omit query to list the most recently refreshed pages'), which is real when-to-use guidance. It stops short of an explicit when-not-to-use or a named alternative, so it does not reach 5.

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