research_query

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It discloses the use of FTS5 and fuzzy typo fallback, which is helpful context, but it does not mention read-only nature, pagination, or error behavior, which are relevant for a query tool.

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 a single sentence that immediately states the core action and key differentiator (FTS5/fuzzy fallback). It is concise and front-loaded with the most important information.

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 presence of an output schema removes the need to describe return values, but the description is still thin for a 3-parameter search tool. It lacks detail on query syntax, fuzzy fallback behavior, or result limiting, though the schema covers parameters.

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?

The schema has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), and the description only indirectly references 'query' and 'project' through 'Search current project records'. The 'limit' parameter is completely unexplained, so the description does not compensate for the schema gap.

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 uses the specific verb 'search' and identifies the resource as 'current project records'. It differentiates from sibling tools like research_get_record by mentioning FTS5 and fuzzy typo fallback, making its purpose clear.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does, with no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tools, leaving the AI to infer usage.

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