zero_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully bears the burden. It discloses search fields, the return of snippets, default exclusion of sensitive levels (T1/T2), the effect of include_private (returns T1+audit, T2 requires approval), and pagination via limit/offset. This is comprehensive for a read-only search tool.

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 a single compendious sentence that conveys core functionality efficiently. It is front-loaded with the action and field list. However, the use of dashes and Thai characters may reduce readability for non-Thai agents, though it is still clear.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential behavior (fields searched, snippet return, pagination, privacy flag) but lacks information on the meaning of T1/T2 beyond the described access rules, and does not specify the response structure or other parameters like 'tag' or 'domain'. It provides a minimum viable level of completeness.

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 7 parameters but only 'limit' and 'offset' have descriptions (29% coverage). The description adds meaning for 'query' (searches title/aliases/tags/body) and 'include_private' (behavior regarding T1/T2), but it does not explain 'tag', 'type', or 'domain'. It partially compensates for low schema coverage but not fully.

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 explicitly states the tool searches across title, aliases, tags, and body, returning snippets. This clearly identifies the verb (search) and resource (items with those fields). The sibling tools (e.g., zero_resolve, zero_read) do not offer search, so this tool is well-differentiated.

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 some usage context, such as default exclusion of T1/T2 and behavior when include_private is set, but it does not explicitly advise when to use this tool over alternatives like zero_read for full content or zero_resolve for reference resolution. The guidance is implied but not comparative.

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