keyword_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It explains the search mechanism and parameter details but does not explicitly state it is read-only. However, the nature of a search tool implies read-only, and the description is otherwise 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?

The description is concise and well-structured, with a front-loaded purpose statement, usage guidance, and a clear bulleted parameter list. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 5 parameters and no annotations, the description provides comprehensive details on purpose, usage, and parameters. It does not mention sorting or empty results, but output schema exists to cover return values, making it largely 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates fully by explaining each parameter: query syntax (websearch tsquery), folder, limit, tags (ALL must match), and frontmatter (strict type matching). This adds significant value 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 the tool performs full-text keyword search via PostgreSQL tsvector, specifies use cases (exact identifiers, code symbols, proper nouns), and explicitly distinguishes it from the sibling semantic_search tool.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool (exact queries) and when to use the alternative semantic_search (conceptual or paraphrased queries), directly naming the sibling tool.

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