search_bookmarks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that matching is case-insensitive and covers title and URL, which is useful behavioral detail. However, it does not mention the read-only nature (though obvious for search), default browser behavior, or any potential side effects, leaving some gaps.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the verb and object. Every word contributes meaning; there is no redundancy or irrelevant 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 simple two-parameter search tool, the description is adequately complete. It covers the core behavior, and the presence of an output schema presumably handles return-value details. A minor gap is the lack of explicit mention of the browser parameter, but this is covered in the schema.

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 100% with descriptions for both keyword and browser, setting a baseline of 3. The description adds semantic value to the keyword parameter by explaining how it is used (matching title and URL case-insensitively), going beyond the schema's simple 'search keyword'.

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 a specific verb ('search') and resource ('bookmarks'), and further specifies that it matches title and URL case-insensitively. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_bookmarks and add_bookmark, which have different purposes.

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: this is the tool to use when you need to find bookmarks by keyword. However, there are no explicit exclusions or comparisons to alternatives (e.g., when to use list_bookmarks instead). The sibling names provide context, but the description itself does not offer explicit guidance.

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