furl_search

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: case-insensitive search, literal substring matching, return fields (hash, preview, created-at, size), ordering by newest first, and workflow to retrieve full original. It does not mention rate limits or auth needs, but for a search tool this is acceptable.

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 two sentences plus a parenthetical note, all front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: use case, return details, constraints, and follow-up action. No wasted 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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately explains return values and ordering. It also provides a complete workflow (search then retrieve). Missing: error handling, empty result behavior, or pagination info, but these are minor for a 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 100%, so the description adds no new information beyond the schema. It repeats the query parameter's behavior (case-insensitive, literal) but omits mention of the limit parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the tool finds stored originals by a case-insensitive substring of their content. It specifies the use case (when lost a hash marker) and distinguishes it from sibling tools like furl_retrieve or furl_list, making the purpose 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?

The description explicitly states when to use this tool (when you lost a hash marker but remember some text) and advises subsequent use of furl_retrieve. It also notes that it's substring only, not regex, which gives clear usage constraints. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or compare to other search methods, but the context is sufficient.

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