Search n8n nodes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds significant value by revealing the use of SQLite FTS5, the scope of 538 node types, and the browsable fallback behavior when query is empty. It does not detail output format or default limit, but for a read-only search tool this is a reasonable level of transparency.

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 compact, two sentences, and front-loaded with the core search capability. Every clause adds useful information—search technology, catalog size, searched fields, and empty-query behavior—without redundancy or filler.

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 tool with 4 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides the essential context: what is searched, how to browse, and the package scope. It does not specify default limit or output shape, but these are minor gaps for a search tool and the description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 50%, and the description compensates by clarifying the query parameter ('leave query empty to browse'), the package scope ('core + AI/langchain' maps to the packageName enum), and the searched fields. The limit parameter remains under-explained, but the description meaningfully enriches the semantics of the main filters.

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 a specific verb ('search') with a defined resource ('all 538 node types') and explicitly lists the searched fields (name, description, keywords). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_categories and get_node by emphasizing full-text search across the entire node catalog.

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 provides a clear usage instruction: 'Leave query empty to browse by category/package.' While it does not name alternatives explicitly, the context of sibling tools and the specific browse behavior makes the primary use case evident. It gives useful guidance on when to use the query vs. category/package filters.

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