search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the return format (verbatim sentence-level quotes with file, section, and score), which substitutes for the absent output schema, but says nothing about ranking, result limits, pagination, or whether matching is lexical/semantic.

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?

One tight sentence with the verb front-loaded and no filler. It could have absorbed a routing clause at no real length cost, but nothing present is wasted.

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 one-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description does supply the essential return shape, so it is minimally complete. It still omits any guidance on result volume, ranking, or how to follow up with quote/verify, leaving the agent to guess at the surrounding workflow.

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 there is a single required "query" string, so the schema already documents the only parameter. The description adds no query syntax, operators, or phrasing guidance beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline for high-coverage schemas.

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 ("Search the corpus") plus the shape of what comes back. It is clear on its own, but it never names or contrasts with the siblings quote/verify/list_sources, even though the return of "verbatim sentence-level quotes" sits close to what the quote sibling likely does.

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 statement of when to use search versus quote, verify, or list_sources. An agent gets no condition, prerequisite, or exclusion to route on — it must infer that search is the discovery step and quote/verify are follow-ups.

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