search

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

No annotations provided, and the description only states 'full-text search' without detailing behavior like result format, pagination, or performance characteristics. For a search tool, this is minimal disclosure.

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?

Extremely concise: one sentence plus a clear parameter list. No wasted words, directly front-loaded.

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?

Covers the basic functionality and parameters, but lacks explanation of output (though output schema exists) and does not distinguish from similar sibling tools. Leaves the agent with incomplete decision support.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description clearly explains each parameter: query is a search term, lang lists valid language codes with default, section lists valid filters. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema.

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?

Clearly states 'Full-text search across the entire philosophy corpus,' indicating it covers all sections. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like search_artigos, leaving some ambiguity about when to use this vs. specific section searches.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools such as search_artigos or search_glossario. The optional section filter implies scope, but fails to direct the agent to more specific alternatives.

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