search_bookmarks

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions full-text and semantic search but omits key details like what results look like, default limits, pagination behavior, or any side effects. The schema provides some parameter details, but the description adds little behavioral context.

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 exceptionally concise: two sentences that are front-loaded with the action and scope. There is no redundant or filler content.

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 search tool with no output schema, the description should at least indicate what is returned and how pagination works. The tool has offset and limit parameters, but the description does not explain pagination or result format. Sibling differentiation is also missing. The description is under-specified for effective 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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'keyword, topic, or author' aligns with the query parameter but adds no new semantics beyond what the schema already states. No additional syntax or interaction details are provided.

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 function: searching saved Twitter/X bookmarks by keyword, topic, or author. It uses a specific verb ('search') and a well-defined resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_collection_bookmarks' or 'ask_bookmarks'.

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 implies usage for general bookmark search but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives like 'ask_bookmarks' or 'get_collection_bookmarks'. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are given.

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