search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds value by disclosing accent-insensitivity, a behavioral trait not captured in annotations. It does not contradict annotations.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence covers purpose and scope, the second adds a key behavioral detail. Perfectly front-loaded and concise.

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?

For a read-only search tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers scope and a notable behavior (accent-insensitivity). However, it does not mention result grouping or pagination, which would be helpful for completeness. Nonetheless, it is sufficient for basic use.

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% with clear descriptions for q, type, and limit. The description does not add additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Accent-insensitivity is a general behavior, not parameter-specific.

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 all Keepsake data (contacts, entries, tasks, notes, companies), which clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like search_contacts and search_companies that are single-type. The verb 'search' and resource scope are specific and unambiguous.

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?

No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus the type-specific search tools (e.g., search_contacts, search_companies). The description implies it covers all types, but does not state alternatives or provide conditions for preferring one over the other.

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