conversation_search

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does add useful information: this is a retrieval operation and matches via full-text search over title and content. However, it doesn't disclose filter behavior, result limits, or the semantics of the 'only_len' flag, so transparency is only partial.

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 a single, compact, front-loaded sentence with no redundant wording. The internal reference '§3.15' is likely not actionable for an AI agent, and the brevity comes at the cost of missing parameter detail, so it is not a perfect 5.

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 description leaves three parameters unexplained and gives no guidance on selecting this tool among the many sibling search/get tools. The output schema may cover return shape, but invocation semantics and filter behavior are under-specified for a tool with four parameters and no annotations.

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%, so the description needs to compensate for the four undocumented parameters. It indirectly implies that the 'query' parameter is matched against title and content, but 'source', 'project', and 'only_len' remain unexplained.

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 states a specific action ('Recupera'), a clear resource ('conversaciones de auditoría'), and a specific method ('FTS, título + contenido'), so the core purpose is unmistakable. It doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings like conversation_get or personal_search, so it stops short of a 5.

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 about when to use this tool versus conversation_get, personal_search, or tech_search. There are no when-not-to-use conditions, alternative tool mentions, or usage context beyond a reference to section §3.15.

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