Search layers and text

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

With annotations limited to readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, the safety profile is already covered, and the description adds substantial behavioral context: case-insensitive substring matching against names AND text content, per-hit contents (page, ancestor breadcrumb, matched field), and the list mode when query is omitted. Nothing in the description contradicts the read-only annotation — this is purely a query operation.

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?

Three sentences with zero waste: the core purpose and filters are front-loaded, the return shape plus downstream workflow comes second, and the list-mode tip closes it out. Nothing repeats what the schema already states.

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 6-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers matching semantics, result composition (page, breadcrumb, matched field), the list-all behavior, and the follow-up workflow into fig_node / fig_style. Combined with 100% schema coverage — including the cursor resumption note and the limit default — nearly everything an agent needs is present; only truncation/pagination behavior is left to the cursor parameter instead of the description.

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 coverage is 100%, so file, limit, query, scope, types, and cursor are already documented in the input schema, making 3 the baseline. The description adds only modest value by clarifying that omitting `query` switches to a list-all mode, which ties query and types together semantically, but it provides no per-parameter detail beyond 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource — 'Search a file for nodes by name and by text content' — then pins down the matching semantics (case-insensitive substring) and optional filters (node types, subtree). It also differentiates itself from siblings by framing the tool as the find-and-jump entry point that leads to fig_node / fig_style, which is clearly distinct from fig_tree or fig_node.

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 clear workflow context: hits include a guid so you can 'jump straight to a guid and then call fig_node / fig_style,' telling the agent when this tool is the right entry point. It also documents the list-all mode ('Omit `query` to list every node of the given types'). It stops short of a 5 because it never explicitly names exclusions, such as preferring fig_tree when the full hierarchy is needed.

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