search

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true provides some behavioral signal, but the description itself adds nothing beyond the word 'Search'. It does not disclose that this is a read-only global search operation, nor any traits like pagination, result scoping, or permission requirements. While there is no contradiction with annotations, the description carries almost no behavioral disclosure.

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 word is under-specification, not conciseness. The description does not front-load any differentiating or scoping information; it merely echoes the tool name. Given the complexity of the schema, this is severely inadequate.

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?

This tool has a complex schema with nested objects, multiple scoping options, and many boolean-like flags, and no output schema. The description provides none of the context an agent would need to form a correct query or interpret results. It is entirely incomplete for the tool's actual complexity.

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%, and the description provides zero explanation for any of the parameters. With 2 required parameters and numerous optional flags (news, nometa, all_words, titles_only, attachments with enum '0','1','only'), the description must compensate for the schema's silence on semantics, but it does not. Parameter names like q and limit are self-evident, but many others are cryptic without explanation.

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?

Tautological: description restates name/title.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of whether it covers global search across projects, issues, wiki pages, etc., nor any exclusions or preferred use cases. The sibling list includes many resource-specific getters, but the description gives no hint about how search relates to them.

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