search

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the matching semantics (conjunctive, all words) and that results include location, which is genuine behavioral value. It omits case sensitivity, result limits/ordering, and scope boundaries (e.g. whether trashed bookmarks are searched).

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, with the output hint last. No filler or redundancy.

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?

For a one-parameter search tool with an output schema already describing return values, the description covers the essentials. Minor gaps remain around matching behavior details (case, limits, whether trashed items are included), but nothing an agent needs to invoke it is missing.

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?

One parameter at 0% schema coverage, so the description must compensate. 'Contain ALL the words' usefully explains that the single string is treated as a set of terms ANDed together, which the bare schema does not convey, but nothing is said about formatting, quoting, or case handling.

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 gives a specific verb (find), an explicit resource (bookmarks), the fields searched (title, URL, saved note), and the matching rule (ALL the words, i.e. AND semantics). No sibling tool competes for this role, so no differentiation is needed.

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?

Usage is only implied — a 'search' tool is self-evidently for retrieval, and 'Shows where each lives' hints at the result. But there is no statement of when to prefer this over siblings like read_this, note, or tree, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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