search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds that it 'returns matching files' and that fetch is needed to read a file, which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations. No contradictions.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the action, states the result, and points to the next step. Every word earns its place; no fluff or redundancy.

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 simple search tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior (search, return matches, use fetch to read). It doesn't mention pagination or result limits, but for this level of complexity and with annotations covering safety, it's sufficiently complete for an agent to call it 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for the 'query' parameter ('Search query'), so the schema already documents it. The description adds no additional semantics about query format or syntax. Given high schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description doesn't need to compensate.

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 states a clear action ('Search') and resource ('organizational context files'), and explicitly mentions the sibling 'fetch' for reading results, which distinguishes it from that tool. However, it does not differentiate from 'get_context', so it's not fully clear when to use search vs get_context. Still, the core purpose is 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?

It provides partial guidance by directing the agent to 'use fetch to read one' after searching, implying search is for discovery and fetch for retrieval. But it doesn't mention when to use search versus get_context or propose_context_change, leaving some alternatives unaddressed. This is adequate but not exhaustive.

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