SearchLibrary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior beyond that: relevance ranking and the fact that unsaved (in_library:false) hits are unusable downstream. It omits pagination/cursor behavior, which keeps it from a 5.

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 sentences, zero padding, with the core capability front-loaded and the downstream constraint second. Every clause carries information an agent can act on.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be restated, and the description supplies the one thing the schema can't: that unsaved hits can't be chained into item tools. It stops short of describing pagination or default scope handling, leaving a small gap for a 4-param tool.

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 all four parameters including the query operators and the scope enum are already fully documented. The description's mention of searchable fields ('full text, title, author or site') loosely mirrors the by:/site:/title: operators but adds no syntax or format detail. Baseline 3 applies.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Search the user's Matter library') plus the indexed fields and relevance ranking, so the operation is unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from sibling read tools like Matter_ListItems or Matter_GetItem, which is what would push this to 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?

Usage is implied by 'Search ... by full text, title, author or site' rather than stated, and no alternative (ListItems, GetItem) is named. The one real guideline offered is the caveat that in_library:false results can't be consumed by item tools, which is useful but only covers one edge case.

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