search-by-timeframe

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe, repeatable read operation. The description adds context about the temporal nature of the search but doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like pagination behavior (implied by offset/limit), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens with empty results. It doesn't contradict annotations.

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, efficient sentence that immediately conveys the core functionality. It's appropriately sized for a search tool with good schema documentation, with zero wasted words or redundant information.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (6 parameters, temporal filtering logic), 100% schema coverage, and read-only/idempotent annotations, the description is minimally adequate. However, without an output schema and with multiple similar search tools in the sibling set, it should provide more contextual differentiation and guidance about result format or when to prefer this over other search methods.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents all 6 parameters with descriptions, formats, enums, and constraints. The description adds minimal value beyond what's in the schema - it mentions 'temporal criteria' which aligns with timeframe_type but doesn't provide additional semantic context about parameter interactions or usage patterns.

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: 'Search records by temporal criteria' with specific examples of criteria types (creation, modification, interaction dates). It uses a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('records'), but doesn't explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like 'search', 'search-by-content', or 'search-records' beyond the temporal focus.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple search-related sibling tools (search, search-by-content, search-by-relationship, search-records, advanced-search), there's no indication of when temporal filtering is preferred over other search methods or what distinguishes this from general search tools.

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