search_personal_data

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose a key behavior: case-insensitive, simple matching. However, it does not say whether matching applies to all fields, whether it is substring or token-based, or whether the operation is read-only, leaving some ambiguity.

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 sentence with no fluff. It front-loads the core action and resource, then adds the distinguishing behavior. Every word contributes meaningful information.

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?

The tool is low complexity with one parameter and an output schema, which lowers the burden. The description covers the basic purpose and matching behavior. Still, it lacks usage guidance relative to sibling get_* tools and does not clarify what 'personal data' covers, leaving some gaps for an agent deciding between tools.

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 compensate. It adds the meaning that the query parameter is matched case-insensitively and simply. However, it does not define the matching scope or format beyond that, leaving partial ambiguity for the single query parameter.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search'), identifies the resource ('personal data JSON files'), and adds matching behavior ('simple case-insensitive matching'). It is clearly distinct from the sibling get_* tools by the nature of search versus retrieval, though it does not explicitly name a sibling.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus the get_* alternatives. It does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions such as 'use when you need to filter across sections rather than retrieve a specific field.' The usage context is only loosely implied by the word 'search.'

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