search_text

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only implementation flavor (BM25 via FTS5); it says nothing about result ordering, scoring, or behavior with empty/no matches beyond what annotations provide.

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?

Two short sentences, no waste, with the core purpose and the differentiator front-loaded. Nothing could be trimmed without losing signal.

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 four-parameter search tool with no output schema and zero schema descriptions, the two-sentence description leaves top_k, vaults, and exclude_paths entirely unexplained. An agent cannot know how to scope the search or how many results it will get.

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 explains none of the four parameters. 'Query' is inferable from 'full-text search', but top_k, vaults, and exclude_paths are completely undocumented in both the schema and the description, so the tool fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (full-text search) plus the underlying mechanism (SQLite FTS5), and 'exact-word and phrase matches' implicitly distinguishes it from the semantic/hybrid siblings. It stops short of naming those alternatives outright, so sibling differentiation is only implied.

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?

'Best for exact-word and phrase matches' gives a usage signal that helps an agent pick between this and search_semantic/search_hybrid. However, it never names those alternatives or states when NOT to use it, leaving the routing decision to inference.

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