Search saved pages

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description is consistent with a read-only search. It adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations—relevance ranking, snippet generation, and the presence of readAt/bookmark fields—but does not disclose pagination, result limits beyond the schema, or ordering rules for ranked searches.

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?

Four sentences are densely packed but well ordered: capability, return format, empty-query mode, and result fields. Each sentence carries information, with only minor redundancy in the final field-explanation sentence.

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 no output schema, the description usefully explains the return shape (page summaries, snippets, readAt, bookmark). It is largely self-sufficient for a read-only search tool, though it omits ordering/pagination detail and explicit sibling routing.

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 100%, so all four parameters are already documented in the schema, including prefix matching and tag AND-semantics. The description adds only the empty-query fallback behavior, which is a usage note rather than parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 a specific verb (full-text search) and resource (saved pages), and enumerates the searchable fields (title, content, clipped text, notes, tags). It is clearly distinguishable from get_page and list_tags, though it does not explicitly name how it differs from list_recent despite the empty-query behavior overlapping that sibling.

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 implied usage: empty query lists recently updated pages, and the bookmarked/tags filters narrow results. However, it never says when to prefer this tool over list_recent (which appears to serve the same recent-pages purpose) or when to use get_page for full content, leaving routing to inference.

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