search

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

Annotations already establish read-only and closed-world behavior. The description adds that results are limited to 'current' claims, evidence, and theses, but it does not explain matching semantics, ranking, or how currentness is defined.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficiently sized for a short tool definition.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required. However, for a generic search tool surrounded by many retrieval siblings, the description is too sparse on usage boundaries and query/limit semantics.

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 only 33%, and the description partially compensates by mapping 'claims, evidence and theses' to the types parameter. It does not clarify query syntax, matching behavior, or the limit parameter's purpose beyond the 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?

States a specific verb+resource: keyword search over claims, evidence, and theses. It does not differentiate itself from sibling retrieval tools such as recall, brief, or get_entity.

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 no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternatives. With many retrieval siblings, an agent must infer when this generic 'search' is preferable to recall, get_entity, timeline, or recent_records.

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