search

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, closed-world), so the description's job is matching behavior — and it delivers: every word in the query must appear (AND semantics), case-insensitive matching. That is materially useful context an agent cannot infer from the annotations. It stops short of explaining ranking, result caps, or what a match looks like.

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 short sentences plus examples, front-loaded with scope before matching rules. The parenthetical content list is long but every item earns its place by telling the agent what corpus is searched.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and annotations cover safety; what remains is scope and query semantics, both supplied. Slightly short of complete because result ordering, limits, and how many matches to expect are unaddressed.

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?

The single `query` parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry the meaning — and it does, specifying that it accepts a keyword or phrase, giving concrete examples, and defining the AND/case-insensitive matching rule. The only gap is that quoting/negation/phrase-grouping syntax is left unstated.

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?

Description gives a specific verb (search) and an explicit scope: the union of every content section on the site (resume, skills, projects, documents, timeline, interests, travel). That enumeration makes it clear this is the cross-cutting tool rather than any of the granular siblings, though it never names those siblings 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?

Usage is implied by the scope statement — reach for this when you want a keyword hit anywhere rather than a specific section — but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no routing to alternatives like get_skills or list_documents.

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