search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses behavioral traits like FST-backed search, regex support, date range filtering, and default values. It does not mention read-only status, but the name and context imply no destructive effects.

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 well-structured with a brief intro, a domain list, and a parameter table. It is slightly lengthy but every sentence adds value. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the parameter descriptions are clear.

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?

All 11 parameters are explained, and domains are explicitly listed. Although the output schema exists separately and the description does not detail return values, the input side is fully covered, making it complete for selection and invocation.

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 0%, but the tool description provides thorough explanations for all 11 parameters, including defaults and domain-specific applicability (e.g., role for sessions, speaker for transcripts). This far exceeds the schema's bare property definitions.

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 'Search across domains with FST-backed full-text search' and enumerates specific domains (sessions, transcripts, notifications, all). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_history or search_log by emphasizing cross-domain full-text search capabilities.

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 lists domains and hints at use cases (e.g., 'transcripts supports speaker filter'), but does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool in favor of alternatives. However, the domain list provides clear context for selection.

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