ia_fulltext_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose useful traits: matches wrapped in **, snippets with page numbers, and that the endpoint is experimental and may change. It omits auth requirements, rate limits, and any statement about result stability, so it is only partially transparent.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then usage context, then a compact Args block. No filler sentences, though the arg list is somewhat tersely formatted.

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-value documentation is unnecessary, and all three parameters are explained. The experimental-endpoint caveat covers stability. Minor gap: no guidance on paginating through large result sets or handling the 50-hit cap.

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 must compensate, and it does: query is 'Words or a "quoted phrase"', hits is bounded to 1-50, and page is defined as 'Page number from 1'. This adds real meaning over the bare schema types, though default values (10 and 1) are left to the schema.

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 OCR text inside Internet Archive books and reports') and adds scope ('with snippets and page numbers'). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like ia_search, ia_read_text and ia_grep_text.

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?

Gives a clear use context: 'This is the way to find a name, place or phrase inside a memoir, regimental history or official report.' That tells the agent when this tool is appropriate, but it never names an alternative tool or an exclusion condition, so routing among the ia_* siblings still requires inference.

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