search_chunks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds useful behavioral traits such as 'cited' (chunks include citations), 'policy-gated' (access may be restricted by policy), and 'existing local bundle index' (the bundle must already exist locally). However, it does not explain what policy-gating entails, how failures are surfaced, or whether the operation is purely read-only.

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 one efficient, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. It is slightly under-specified, which limits 'appropriately sized', but structurally it is concise and immediately states the core action.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description lacks essential usage context: when to use it, how to scope with bundle, what policy-gating means in practice, and how limit behaves. With zero annotations and zero schema descriptions, this is not enough for reliable tool selection and 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameters. It only loosely hints at 'bundle' via 'bundle index' and at 'query' via 'search_chunks', but provides no explicit meaning for query, limit, or bundle. The default/null behavior of bundle is left unexplained.

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 the verb 'Return' and the resource: cited, policy-gated chunks from an existing local bundle index. It gives a specific and distinct purpose, though it does not explicitly compare itself to siblings like get_chunk or okf_search_tool.

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 alternatives. It neither names sibling tools nor states conditions or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the tool name and generic phrasing.

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