goldhold_search

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

With no annotations, the description does add behavioral context by specifying that search is 'semantic' and that results are 'ranked from past sessions'. It does not disclose output structure, edge-case behavior, or any operational constraints, but the core behavior is at least stated.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. Both sentences contribute meaningful information: the first states the operation and scope, the second states the result type and source.

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 simple and all parameters are documented in the schema, but no output schema exists and the return shape is only vaguely described as 'ranked results'. The description is adequate for basic invocation but leaves the result format and selection criteria between sibling tools unspecified.

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 the schema already documents query, limit, and folder. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource: 'Semantic search across GoldHold memory' and states the outcome as 'ranked results from past sessions'. It is clearly more specific than the bare tool name, though it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like goldhold_memory_read or goldhold_discover.

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?

No guidance is provided for when to use this tool versus the many GoldHold siblings. The description does not mention alternatives, exclusions, or context that would help an agent decide between goldhold_search, goldhold_discover, and goldhold_memory_read.

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