Search Nodes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds search scope (title, metadata, tags) and algorithm options, which is useful behavioral context, but does not disclose defaults for limit/offset, result ordering, or return format. With good annotations, a 3 is appropriate.

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, information-dense sentence fully captures the tool's purpose and key options. No redundancy or filler; every clause contributes substantive value.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (7 parameters, 1 required) and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It covers search method and scope, while schema covers parameter details. However, it omits any mention of result ordering or pagination behavior, though these are minor given the schema and annotations. The overall package is complete enough for an agent to use effectively.

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. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the search algorithms ('full-text search (FTS5) or local TF-IDF vector similarity') and the fields targeted ('title, metadata, and tags'), which maps directly to the algorithm parameter and clarifies search scope. This elevates it above baseline.

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 the tool's function: 'Search nodes using full-text search (FTS5) or local TF-IDF vector similarity across title, metadata, and tags.' It specifies the verb, resource, search methods, and fields, effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like natural_language_query or list_nodes.

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 clear context on when to use the tool (keyword or vector-similarity search across nodes). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the two algorithm options imply appropriate use cases. This meets the 'clear context, no exclusions' criterion.

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