Search entries

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Search' implies a read-only operation, which is honest, but the description says nothing about the return format, result ordering, size limits, or pagination. For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, these gaps leave an agent guessing what it will get back.

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 sentence with zero filler. The verb, scope, and the three search targets are front-loaded with no redundant phrasing. Every word 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?

The input side is fully covered by the schema, and the description accurately scopes what is searched. However, with no output schema present and no mention of the result shape, the description is not fully complete — an agent does not know whether the tool returns full entries, IDs, or titles. Adequate but with a clear 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%, so all three parameters (query, tag, include_archive) are already documented with clear semantics. The description adds mild context by establishing what the full-text search covers, which reinforces the query parameter, but it does not materially add meaning beyond the schema — matching the baseline of 3.

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 states a specific verb ('search') plus a resource and scope: full-text across headlines, body text, and tags in all org files. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like org_get_entry (fetch a specific entry) and org_list_todos (list by state) — no other sibling overlaps with full-text search.

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 conveys when to use it — when you need to find entries by text content, with the tag and include_archive parameters expanding the search. However, it never explicitly names alternatives or states when not to use it (e.g., when you already know the entry ID, use org_get_entry). Usage context is implied but not routed.

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