Search agent sessions

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

Annotations already set readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this by stating 'Read-only'. It adds value by mentioning 'case-insensitive' and the dual search targets (titles and recent transcript content), which are non-obvious behaviors not captured in the schema or annotations. No contradiction.

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 one sentences with no fluff, front-loading the main purpose. It includes 'Read-only' and 'case-insensitive' efficiently. The only minor issue is the parenthetical 'and recent transcript content' could be clearer, but it does not waste words.

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?

The tool is simple enough that the description mostly suffices, but it lacks parameter semantic details that are critical due to 0% schema coverage. An agent might misuse the 'agent' filtering or misunderstand 'limit' behavior. Without output schema, the return format is also undocumented, but that is less critical for a search tool. On balance, it falls short of full 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain parameters, but it does not. It omits meaning for 'agent' (which has an enum), 'limit', and 'query'. The description only hints at search functionality but provides no detail on how these parameters affect behavior, such as the default agent scope or limit interpretation. This is a significant gap given the low coverage.

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 'Search session titles (and recent transcript content) for a substring', combining a specific verb with clear resources. It also distinguishes itself by mentioning read-only and case-insensitive behavior, setting it apart from siblings like list_sessions or get_session.

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 implies usage (searching across sessions) but does not explicitly compare to siblings. It lacks guidance on when not to use this tool, such as when full transcript retrieval is needed (get_transcript) or when listing all sessions without search is desired (list_sessions). However, the search scope is clear enough for an agent to infer common use cases.

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