Search Vault

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: no mention of how results across domains are combined or ranked, no pagination behavior, and no read-only/reversibility framing beyond the implied meaning of 'search'. For a cross-domain aggregator with five underlying domains, this is a real gap.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the scope and covered domains are stated immediately. Every clause earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists and schema coverage is complete, so return values and parameters need not be re-explained. What is missing is the piece only prose can supply: guidance on choosing this unified search over the four overlapping domain-specific search siblings. Adequate but with a clear routing gap.

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%, with all three parameters (query, limit, domain) documented in the schema itself. The description's parenthetical domain list loosely maps to the 'domain' values but adds no syntax, matching, or format detail beyond what the schema already supplies, 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 ('Unified search across all collections') and enumerates the covered domains, so an agent knows this spans books, media, sensory goods, restaurants and quotes. It implicitly contrasts with the domain-specific siblings but never names them, so the differentiation is inferable rather than explicit.

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?

'Unified across all collections' implies this is the cross-domain entry point, which is useful given siblings like search_books, search_media, search_sensory_vault and search_restaurants. However, it never states when to prefer this over a domain-specific search or how to scope results, leaving the routing decision to inference.

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