keyword

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it discloses that operators are inert, that hyphens are quoted server-side, and that unmatched terms fall back to note paths/frontmatter with a 'note-identity' reason. It omits result ordering/ranking and any indication of cost or latency.

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 key differentiator 'Exact keyword/BM25 search only' is front-loaded and the sentences are dense with useful information. The trailing '(reason: "note-identity")' is an internal artifact that costs clarity more than it earns.

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 two-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description covers matching semantics, operator behavior, and fallback resolution adequately. Ranking/ordering of matches and the meaning of topK relative to the fallback path are the remaining gaps.

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% and the `query` semantics (exact phrase, operators treated as plain words) are already stated in the schema, so the description mostly restates it. It adds only marginal value by explaining the path/frontmatter fallback for unmatched terms; `topK` behavior is not elaborated 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?

The description opens with a concrete verb+mechanism ('Exact keyword/BM25 search only'), states the matching rule, and explicitly frames itself against the sibling `search`, so an agent can distinguish the two without opening either schema.

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?

It gives an explicit routing rule ('Use search for identity and natural-language questions'), which tells the agent when to prefer the alternative. It stops short of covering the other siblings (evidence, entity, note) or stating an explicit when-not condition for this tool.

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