search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so excellently: declares read-only status, no side effects/auth/rate limits, describes return fields (match_excerpt, title_highlight, total_est_tokens), and discloses FTS tokenization limitations.

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?

Dense but well-structured; every sentence adds value. Front-loaded with core purpose, then limitations, parameter nuances, and alternatives. No fluff or repetition.

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 no output schema, the description explains return fields and aggregate. Covers usage, limitations, parameter semantics, and alternatives, making it complete for a search tool of this complexity.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds significant meaning beyond schema: clarifies that `project_id: null` restricts to KB only vs omitted spans all, that all tags must match, and that no follow-up `read_file` is needed for snippets.

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 a specific action: full-text keyword search across files using FTS5. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly naming `regex_search` and `bundle_search` as alternatives for different needs.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: fall back to `regex_search` for URLs/hyphenated terms/partial substrings, and use `bundle_search` for prompt-ready bundled bodies. Also explains project_id semantics (null vs omitted) and tag matching behavior.

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