search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context by revealing the matching engine (FTS5 porter stemming, which implies stemming-based recall) and that structured mode also matches frontmatter, but says nothing about result ordering, pagination, or how limits truncate.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the core operation and scope, with no filler. It is appropriately sized, though the second sentence is terse enough to feel borderline cryptic.

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 6-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description omits anything about result shape, ordering, or how limit interacts with paging. Scope and matching semantics are covered and safety is handled by annotations, so it is adequate but not complete.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description genuinely clarifies what the schema only labels: it explains that structured mode still matches frontmatter, which the enum description ('Search mode (default text)') does not convey. This is meaningful added meaning beyond the schema.

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 its scope (this project) and the underlying implementation (SQLite FTS5 porter stemming). It is clearly distinguishable from graph/extract siblings, though it does not name any sibling explicitly.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as graph_related, read, or extract, and no statement of when to prefer text vs structured mode. The mention of structured mode implies a use case but never states the condition that selects it.

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