Search captures

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), yet the description still adds real context: ranked snippets and search-mode metadata are returned, and semantic modes silently degrade to keyword with a reason when the local index or helper is unavailable. That fallback behavior is the kind of trait an agent needs and annotations cannot express. Minor gap: no hint about result size or paging beyond the limit parameter.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then alternatives, then return shape, then the fallback caveat — each sentence carries a distinct payload. Slightly dense, but nothing is repeated or discardable.

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 no output schema, the description usefully discloses the return shape ('ranked item snippets and search-mode metadata'). All six parameters are documented in the schema and the enum-driven fallback semantics are reinforced in prose. Only the volume/pagination behavior of results is left unstated.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the roles of channel and hook filters but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema's own parameter descriptions already state about mode fallback and match strictness.

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 ('Find whole saved items by text') plus scope ('optional channel and hook filters'). It then explicitly distinguishes itself from three sibling search tools, so an agent can route without opening any schema.

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?

Names alternatives and the condition that selects each: search_clips for timed transcript windows, search_library for bounded revision-bound retrieval, query_by_facets for exact stored labels. 'Use to select corpora' even states the higher-level task the tool serves.

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