search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the search mechanism (FST-backed), domain definitions, and detailed parameter behaviors (regex, case_sensitive, role, speaker). However, it does not mention limitations or edge cases like what happens when using domain-specific filters with incompatible domains, or how results are ranked.

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 well-structured with clear sections for purpose, domains, and arguments. It is front-loaded with the core statement, and every line adds value. The length is justified because it documents 11 parameters with no schema descriptions.

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?

The tool is complex with 11 parameters and multiple domains, and the description covers all of them thoroughly. The existence of an output schema means return values need not be described. The only notable gap is the lack of guidance on combining domain-specific filters with incompatible domains, which leaves some ambiguity.

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 0% description coverage, so the description's Args section is essential. It covers all 11 parameters with plain-language explanations, defaults, and domain-specific hints (e.g., role for sessions, speaker for transcripts). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 opens with a clear statement 'Search across domains with FST-backed full-text search,' and then enumerates the specific domains (sessions, transcripts, notifications) and 'all' option. This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable and differentiates it from siblings like search_history and search_log.

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 implicit context about what domains are searched, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or when-not-to-use. The sibling tools search_history and search_log are not referenced, so usage guidance is implied rather than direct.

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