search_fulltext

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It states the search target but omits read-only nature, pagination, result ordering, permissions, rate limits, and whether unparsed PDFs are silently excluded.

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 single sentence is front-loaded, has no wasted words, and is easy to parse. It is arguably too sparse for the tool's complexity, but as a conciseness measure it is efficient.

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 three-parameter search tool with no annotations and no schema descriptions, the description is incomplete. The output schema covers return values, but the description should still explain search scope, parameter semantics, and when to prefer this over sibling search tools.

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 three parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description provides no meaning for query, limit, or source. It does not describe query syntax, the purpose of source, or how limit affects results.

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 names a specific verb (Search) and resource (parsed PDF body text), and the word 'only' clarifies that this tool is scoped to full text rather than metadata or broader sources. It is clear enough on its own, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as search_local or get_fulltext.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus search_local or other search tools. The only implied usage condition is that PDFs must already be parsed, which is not stated as an explicit prerequisite or alternative.

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