keyword_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explains the search uses tsvector, describes query syntax, and details parameter behavior (e.g., strict type matching for frontmatter). However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only with no side effects, which is a minor gap.

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 well-structured: a clear opening line, a usage guideline sentence, and a bulleted list of parameters. It is concise with no wasted words, yet covers all necessary details.

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 complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, output schema exists), the description covers all aspects: purpose, when to use, parameter details, and differentiation from a sibling. No missing information for effective tool selection and 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must fully explain each parameter. It does so comprehensively: query syntax, folder example, limit default, tags (ALL match), frontmatter (strict type matching with example). This adds significant meaning beyond 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?

The description clearly states that the tool performs full-text keyword search via PostgreSQL tsvector, and specifies the types of queries it is suited for: exact identifiers, code symbols, proper nouns, or known phrases. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tool semantic_search.

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?

The description explicitly tells when to use this tool (exact identifiers, code symbols, etc.) and when not to (conceptual or paraphrased queries, directing the user to use semantic_search instead). This provides clear guidance on tool selection.

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