search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It discloses the search engine (FTS5 + BM25), synonym handling, result citations to note + page heading, and the include_superseded flag behavior. It does not mention potential errors or performance constraints, but for a search tool this is solid behavioral coverage.

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 compact and front-loaded: two introductory sentences and a bulleted Args list. Every sentence adds value – the first states what it does, the second gives usage context, and the args list is minimal. No redundant or filler text.

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?

Given the output schema exists (as noted in context), return-value details are covered externally. The description supplies all necessary context: scope, behavior, parameter semantics, and usage sequence. For a 5-parameter search tool with a required query, this is complete and self-sufficient.

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%, but the description provides an explicit Args section that explains every parameter in plain language with examples (e.g., query: 'sign on saturday'). It clarifies that category is a substring filter, include_superseded searches replacements, and limit has a default of 8. This fully compensates for the sparse schema.

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 'Full-text search over every document chunk (FTS5 + BM25 + synonyms)' – a specific verb, resource, and technique. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_events, read_doc, or list_docs, which serve different purposes. It also specifies that it searches all document chunks, not just documents.

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 explicitly states 'Best first step for any factual question' and advises to 'follow up with read_doc for full context.' This tells the agent exactly when to use this tool and what alternative to use afterward. The guidance is direct and actionable.

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