Search first-party essays

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

Annotations already establish the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond that: results are 'ranked', matching is 'accent-insensitive', and search spans 'titles, summaries, topics and bodies'. This meaningfully informs expectations without contradicting the annotations.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core function and scope, and the second provides actionable usage guidance. Every phrase contributes to correct selection and invocation.

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 search tool, the description covers what is searched, the result flavor (ranked, accent-insensitive), and how to proceed. The output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required in the description. Minor room remains for explicitly contrasting with broader search tools, but nothing essential is missing.

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 query, limit, and locale are already documented in the input schema. The description adds context about ranking and accent-insensitivity but does not need to restate parameter meanings; the baseline 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 identifies a specific verb ('search'), a well-defined resource ('first-party essays'), and the scope ('every first-party essay, including titles, summaries, topics and bodies'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like list_articles (which lists rather than searches) and get_article (which retrieves a complete essay).

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 a direct usage trigger ('Use this when you need long-form analysis about a topic') and a follow-up action ('follow with get_article for the complete essay'). It does not explicitly describe when to prefer search_all or search, but the essay-specific context is clear enough for an agent to route correctly.

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