search_across_vaults

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

The annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, which the description doesn't contradict. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains that unknown vault aliases are 'silently skipped' and mentions the CLI registration requirement. However, it doesn't describe rate limits, authentication needs, or other operational constraints.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement upfront, followed by usage guidance, prerequisites, and parameter details. Every sentence adds value with zero waste, and the information is well-organized for quick comprehension.

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 with read-only annotations and no output schema, the description provides good context about cross-vault searching, prerequisites, and parameter behavior. It explains what the tool returns ('ranked results with titles, paths, snippets, and source vault name'), which compensates for the missing output schema. The main gap is lack of information about result format details or pagination.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description repeats some parameter information (query as 'Natural language search query', top_k defaults and limits, vaults behavior when omitted) but doesn't add significant meaning beyond what the schema provides. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 the specific action ('Search across multiple registered vaults at once') and resource ('vaults'), and explicitly distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'search_notes' by explaining when to use this tool instead. This provides excellent differentiation from alternatives.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('when you need context from other projects or want a cross-project view') versus the alternative ('search_notes'), and includes important prerequisites ('Vaults must be registered first via the CLI'). This gives clear context and exclusions.

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