Search Entries

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds 'client-side' and 'local search semantics,' providing additional context, but lacks details on pagination, return format, or how filters interact.

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 a single, tight sentence that front-loads the core purpose with no filler words. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices necessary details for full understanding.

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 tool with five parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not describe search behavior, result structure, or filter semantics, leaving significant gaps for correct invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description needed to explain the purpose of query, limit, tag_id, bundle_id, and include_archived. It provides no parameter-level details, leaving users to infer semantics solely from parameter names.

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 identifies a search operation with 'Client-side text search' and scopes it to 'the web app's local title/content search semantics,' which distinguishes it from sibling list/get tools by indicating text-based searching.

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 implies usage for text search on titles/content, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like bundled_list_entries. No exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned, leaving context inferred.

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