search_server_code

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It only says 'Fast keyword search' but fails to disclose read-only nature, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what the output contains. The behavioral traits are largely undisclosed.

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 efficient sentences, front-loading the core purpose and immediately linking to the sibling tool. Every word adds value; no filler.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description omits any mention of return values (e.g., snippets, match structure). It also does not address pagination, limits on scope, or other operational details expected for a search tool with six parameters.

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 50%, with half of parameters (e.g., limit, query, max_snippet_length) lacking descriptions. The tool description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond listing code types; it does not compensate for the missing schema explanations.

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?

States it performs 'Fast keyword search across 22 server-side code types' with examples (SI/BR/ACL), and explicitly names the sibling tool for portal regex search, clearly distinguishing its scope.

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?

Provides a direct pointer to the alternative tool (search_portal_regex_matches) for portal regex searches, implying when to use this vs that. However, it does not give explicit when-not-to-use conditions or prerequisites.

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