Search every SANTISMM knowledge surface

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavior beyond annotations: it aggregates all surfaces in one call, reports that results name the next tool to call, and describes routing of calculator-shaped questions to Labs.

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 compact and front-loaded, stating the resource and scope in the first sentence, followed by guidance and expectations. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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?

For a broad search tool with an output schema, rich annotations, and 100% schema coverage, the description provides sufficient context: it tells the agent when to use it, what it searches, and what to expect from results. The routing behavior and cross-tool guidance complete the picture for correct invocation.

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%, and every parameter is already documented with clear semantics: query, locale, surfaces, and limit_per_surface. The description adds little parameter-specific meaning beyond reinforcing that all five surfaces are searched, so the 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 states a specific action ('Search') applied to every defined SANTISMM knowledge surface, enumerating the surfaces: core corpus, essays, Labs, epistemic claims, and Homeric Atlas. It also distinguishes itself by saying it covers more than 'only a core knowledge unit,' which separates it from narrower sibling search tools.

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 gives clear usage context: 'Use this first when a natural-language question might require a calculation, a long-form essay or a claim audit rather than only a core knowledge unit.' It also sets expectations about routing calculator-shaped questions to Labs, but it does not explicitly name sibling tools or formalize when-not-to-use conditions.

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