search_raw

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It honestly states the output is 'untreated conversation content — expect noise', and explains the archive's role in preserving everything even when summarize/promote skip turns. It does not detail return structure or rate limits, but for a read-only search tool the key behavioral caveat (raw/noisy) is communicated.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then usage guidance, then a note on noise. No wasted words; every sentence earns its place.

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 tool has 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential context: what it searches, when to use it, and the raw/noisy nature of results. It doesn't describe the exact response shape, but for a search tool over raw content, the provided info is reasonably complete.

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?

Since schema description coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3. The top-level description does not add significant parameter-level detail beyond the schema, though it reinforces the literal-phrase use case. The schema itself already documents all 8 parameters, so the description adds marginal value here.

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 searches the raw archive of every user/assistant turn captured by the Stop hook, and distinguishes it from the curated `search` sibling by emphasizing raw, literal content. The verb 'search' plus explicit resource scope makes the purpose unambiguous.

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?

It explicitly says to use this tool 'when `search` returns no curated match or you need to recall a literal phrase from past chats', and contrasts the raw archive with curated search. This gives clear when-to-use guidance and names the alternative tool, satisfying the dimension strongly.

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