personal_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses truncation behavior, exposes truncated/full character hints, reports doc_count/doc_char_count, and explains that max_chars=0 disables truncation. It does not mention read-only guarantees, result limits, or sorting, but these are less critical for a search tool with an output schema.

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 compact and front-loaded, with only three sentences covering purpose, behavior, and the alternative tool. The cryptic 'R7, DL4' reference adds some noise and prevents a perfect score.

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 moderate-complexity tool with an output schema, the description covers the main invocation behavior, truncation semantics, and the related retrieval tool. The main omission is only_len, and there is no explicit statement about side effects or limitations, but the overall picture is sufficient for correct use.

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 must compensate. It explains query semantics, text_max_chars, and summary_max_chars including the sentinel value 0. However, the only_len parameter is never explained, leaving a meaningful gap despite the boolean default.

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 ('Búsqueda keyword FTS5') and the exact resources/fields searched: name/alias/summary and document text. It also distinguishes its role as the cheap first step of a flow, clearly separating it from the retrieval tool personal_get_node.

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?

It explicitly positions the tool as 'Primer paso del flujo: barato' and tells the agent to expand full results with personal_get_node. This gives clear usage context and a named alternative, though it does not explicitly rule out use cases handled by tech_search or conversation_search.

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