search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the scope ('across all loaded ZIMs') and describes the return format ('Each hit includes the source ZIM, path, title and a short snippet'), but doesn't address important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, performance characteristics, error conditions, or pagination behavior. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 perfectly structured and concise. It begins with the core purpose statement, then provides a well-organized parameter section with clear explanations for each parameter. Every sentence earns its place, and the information is front-loaded with the most important details first.

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 tool's moderate complexity (search across multiple ZIMs), no annotations, no output schema, and 3 parameters, the description provides adequate but incomplete coverage. It explains parameters well and describes the return format, but lacks information about authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or the relationship between 'limit per ZIM' and total results across multiple ZIMs.

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 must compensate for the lack of parameter documentation in the schema. The description successfully adds meaning for all three parameters: explaining 'query' as 'search terms', 'limit' as 'max results per ZIM' with default value, and 'kind' as an 'optional filter' with enumerated values. This provides clear semantic understanding beyond the bare 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 clearly states the tool performs 'Full-text search across all loaded ZIMs' which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_article' (retrieves specific content), 'get_main_page' (gets homepage), and 'list_libraries' (lists available libraries). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with these siblings in the description text itself.

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 context through the phrase 'across all loaded ZIMs' and the parameter documentation, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No guidance is provided about when not to use it or what specific scenarios warrant choosing 'search' over sibling tools like 'get_article' for direct content retrieval.

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