search_local

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose read-only status, permissions, pagination behavior, rate limits, or result handling; only the search scope is given.

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?

A single front-loaded fragment states the core operation with no filler. However, for a five-parameter tool with no annotations, the extreme brevity is under-specification rather than effective conciseness.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. But with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and five parameters, the description omits required usage and parameter context, leaving the agent under-informed for a non-trivial search tool.

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 0% for five parameters, and the description does not explain any parameter such as query syntax, label, limit, since, or source. It adds no semantic meaning beyond the bare field names in the schema.

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 'Search' and resource 'local corpus', plus searched fields title/abstract/fulltext. It is clear what the tool does, but does not distinguish itself from sibling search_fulltext or explain the local vs remote scope.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tool guidance. The description merely states the operation; an agent must infer from the tool name that this is for local-corpus search rather than search_fulltext.

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