search_nodes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses that matching is case-insensitive and token-based, and that it returns matching entities with observations. It does not mention any limitations (e.g., pagination, fuzzy matching, read-only nature) but the disclosed behavior goes beyond the schema and is genuinely informative.

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 concise sentences: the first states the action and target, the second explains the matching behavior and return. No filler or redundant detail. Each sentence 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?

For a one-parameter search tool with an output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose, behavior, and output. It does not address edge cases like empty results or pagination, but these are unlikely to be critical given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema.

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?

The input schema has only one parameter with zero description coverage. The description compensates by explaining that 'query' is used for case-insensitive token matching across entity names, types, and observation content. However, it does not clarify token matching semantics (e.g., substring vs. whole word) or expected formatting, so it adds some but not complete meaning beyond the 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's purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'Search for nodes in the knowledge graph.' It further specifies the matching scope (entity names, types, observation content) and return value (matching entities with their observations), distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_similar or traverse.

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 for keyword-based search across entity fields, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like search_similar or traverse, nor does it mention when not to use it. The context is clear but lacks exclusions or alternative selection guidance, making it a minimum viable score.

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