search_nodes

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the safety/behavior burden. It adds 'case-insensitive' and the 'all nodes' scope, which are useful. However, it does not describe what is searched (content vs. titles), result shape, ordering, or any limitations, leaving important behavior implicit.

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 the core behavior before the parameter list. Each sentence or line adds useful information; there is no filler.

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 low parameter count, flat schema, and presence of an output schema, the description covers the essentials needed to invoke the tool. It is slightly incomplete regarding search scope (content vs. metadata) and result behavior, but these do not block basic correct invocation.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description compensates by restating each parameter with meaning: query is a case-insensitive search term and max_results is the result cap. It does not add constraints like bounds or ordering, but for two flat parameters this is adequate.

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?

Clearly states the action ('search'), the target ('all nodes'), and the mode ('full-text'). This distinguishes it from sibling list/read/create tools, so an agent can pick it for content search rather than listing or fetching.

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 when-to-use or alternative guidance is given. There is no mention of when search_nodes should be preferred over list_nodes or read_node, nor any exclusion or condition. The intended use is only implied by the name and 'full-text search' phrase.

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