search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully reveals that this is an FTS5 search (implying query syntax semantics) and that results include relevance scores and snippets. However, it does not disclose filtering defaults (e.g., behavior when kind/section are omitted), limit defaults, or pagination behavior.

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?

Two tight sentences, no fluff. The core function is front-loaded and the return format gets a dedicated sentence. Every part earns its place.

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?

The description plus schema covers the essentials: parameters are documented and the return format is stated despite the lack of an output schema. However, with no annotations and no usage guidance, an agent still lacks context on default filtering semantics, result limits, and when to choose this tool over nearby siblings.

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 the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable given the high coverage — baseline 3 applies.

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 function — full-text search over the 1C help (FTS5) — and describes the return format (pages with relevance score and snippets). It is clear what the tool does, and the FTS5 scope differentiates it from siblings like related, get_page, and discover, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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 alternatives. The description is purely definitional; it does not mention when to prefer search over related, discover, or hierarchy, nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites. The intended usage is only implied by the tool name.

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