keyword_search

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses key behaviors: uses tsvector, websearch syntax, strict type matching for frontmatter, and ALL-tags matching. It does not explicitly state read-only nature, but the tool name and search semantics imply it. The disclosed details are valuable and go beyond a generic search description.

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 tightly written: a two-sentence purpose and usage intro followed by a structured Args block. Every sentence provides useful information, and the format is easy to scan. No fluffy or redundant 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?

With an output schema present, the description correctly avoids explaining return values. It covers all parameters, gives usage guidance, and discloses matching semantics. The tool is moderately complex, and the description fully addresses its context, especially given the lack of annotations.

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 schema provides 0% description coverage, but the description compensates fully with an 'Args' section that explains every parameter: query syntax examples, folder prefix, limit, tags requiring ALL match, and strict type matching for frontmatter. This adds substantial meaning beyond the raw schema fields.

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 opens with 'Full-text keyword search via PostgreSQL tsvector' and clearly specifies the tool's function: exact keyword matching for identifiers, codes, proper nouns, and known phrases. It explicitly distinguishes from semantic_search, making its purpose unambiguous and well-separated from siblings.

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 usage guidance: 'Use this for exact identifiers... anywhere semantic noise hurts' and contrasts with 'For conceptual or paraphrased queries, use semantic_search instead.' This directly tells the agent when to choose this tool and when to choose the alternative, 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.