search

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the behavioral constraint that groupPath must be database-relative and requires databaseName. However, it omits safety disclosures (read-only vs destructive), return format details, or pagination behavior expected for a 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?

Well-structured with purpose upfront, followed by examples and a constraint note. The examples are verbose but necessary for clarity. No redundant or wasted sentences.

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 rich schema (100% coverage, 10 parameters), the description adequately covers invocation. However, with no output schema provided, the description should ideally explain what search results are returned (e.g., record metadata, content snippets, UUIDs).

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds syntactic examples showing how parameters interact (groupPath with databaseName), but does not add semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides for individual 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?

States specific verb (Search) and resource (DEVONthink records) clearly. Examples reinforce the querying capability. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'lookup_record' or 'get_record_by_identifier' which also retrieve records.

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?

Provides concrete JSON examples showing parameter combinations. Includes a specific constraint note that groupPath requires databaseName. However, lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus 'lookup_record', 'list_group_content', or 'selected_records'.

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