search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It goes far beyond the norm by explaining FTS5 syntax handling, auto-quoting of special characters, German variant expansion, automatic query relaxation with a visible note, and the fact that structured queries are never relaxed. This gives the agent an accurate model of how the tool behaves.

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 front-loaded with the purpose, then organized into logical sections: syntax, special-character handling, German variants, relaxation behavior, and Args/Returns. Each sentence earns its place, and the structure makes the detailed behavior easy to parse.

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 complexity, the description is extremely complete. It covers syntax variants, edge cases like special characters, automatic relaxation, and return format (file, subfolder, page, snippet). The presence of an output schema plus this return description leaves no critical gap for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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%, so the description must fully compensate. It does: the entire FTS5 syntax section gives deep meaning to the query parameter, and the limit parameter is specified with a default and range (1-50) beyond the schema's default. No parameter is left unexplained.

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 'Search indexed PDFs using FTS5 full-text search,' which names a specific verb, resource, and mechanism. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools read_page, read_page_image, and stats, which cover reading and corpus statistics.

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 no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. It never mentions that search should be used to locate relevant pages before calling read_page, nor does it state when not to use search. The only usage-related detail is about query relaxation behavior, which is a how-to, not a when-to-use.

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