search_text

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, authentication requirements, or read-only status. For a search tool, it is assumed read-only but not stated.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys core purpose and differentiating context. It is concise, though could benefit from a bit more structure without becoming verbose.

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 four parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It omits parameter formats, return type details, and any conditions or limitations, making it insufficient for an agent to invoke 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 description does not explain any of the four parameters (query, vaults, top_k, exclude_paths). With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to add meaning beyond the schema field names.

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 it is a full-text BM25 search via SQLite FTS5, and specifies it is best for exact-word and phrase matches, effectively distinguishing it from sibling search tools like search_semantic or search_hybrid.

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 implicitly guides usage by stating 'Best for exact-word and phrase matches,' implying it is not suited for semantic or fuzzy searches. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative recommendations.

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