shiori_search_bookmarks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read-only search but omits key details such as pagination behavior (limit/offset), performance implications, or whether the search is synchronous. The description is insufficiently transparent.

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 a single sentence that is direct and front-loaded with the essential action. There is no extraneous information, making it highly concise.

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?

Despite the brief description, the tool has 100% schema documentation and an output schema, so the agent can infer return structure. The description covers the core purpose adequately for a simple search tool, though it could mention pagination or result limitations.

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 input schema already provides detailed descriptions for all 4 parameters (100% coverage). The description adds minimal value beyond stating 'by text and/or tag', which is already implicit from the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action ('Search'), the resource ('Shiori bookmarks'), and the scope ('client-side by text and/or tag'), effectively distinguishing it from related tools like shiori_list_bookmarks or shiori_get_bookmark.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., shiori_list_bookmarks) or when not to use it. The phrase 'client-side' hints at a limitation but lacks clear direction.

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