search_text

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

The description adds useful behavior beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations: it says matching is case-insensitive, distinguishes fast literal scans from regex, explains that hits are returned in A-number order, and describes what each hit contains. It does not discuss limits or pagination, but the annotations already cover the safety profile.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core action and then systematically covers pattern, fields, and result shape. The examples are useful rather than wasteful, and there is no redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains matching semantics, fields, default field, result ordering, and snippet behavior. The main remaining gap is that limit and snippet_chars are not explained, though their defaults are visible in the schema.

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 carry parameter meaning. It explains pattern and fields well, including allowed field names and the default, but it does not describe the limit or snippet_chars parameters, leaving two of four parameters undocumented.

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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: find sequences whose text fields match a word, phrase, or regex, with case-insensitive behavior. It is more specific than the tool name alone, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as search_terms or search_terms_batch.

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?

Usage is implied through the pattern and fields explanation, including examples of plain text and regex searches. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus search_terms or search_terms_batch, nor does it state exclusions or prerequisites.

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