store_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the transparency burden. It discloses read-only behavior, AND logic, substring matching, empty-query behavior, return shape, and scope confinement. This is exemplary behavioral disclosure for a search tool.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every clause adds meaningful information. There is no filler or repetition of schema fields.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description does a strong job by covering return shape ('Returns matching records with _id metadata'), edge case (empty query), and scope limitations. However, it omits details like pagination, result limits, and potential error conditions, leaving some gaps for a search tool.

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 description thoroughly explains the semantics of the 'query' parameter (split on whitespace, AND, substring) and partially explains 'collection' by stating it searches 'one SOIL collection'. However, 'app_id' is not described, and the schema has 0% coverage, so that parameter's meaning remains unclear.

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 the specific verb 'search' and identifies the resource as 'one SOIL collection', which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tool store_search_all. It also explains the full-text token matching semantics, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool 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?

The description provides clear context by specifying that it searches a single collection and is confined to store_scope. It implicitly contrasts with store_search_all, but it does not explicitly state when to use one vs. the other or name alternatives.

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