search

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

The description discloses that results are ranked excerpts (~200 chars) and supports fuzzy/prefix search. This covers key behavior, but lacks details on error handling or empty results. Since no annotations exist, the description carries full responsibility and does so adequately.

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 sentences, no redundancy. First sentence states purpose and output, second adds features. Highly concise and front-loaded.

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 without output schema, the description explains output nature (ranked excerpts, ~200 chars) and features. Missing edge cases like empty results or error handling, but overall adequate given sibling context.

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 covers 100% of parameters. Description adds that the query supports fuzzy matching and prefix search, but does not elaborate on limit, folder, or tag beyond their schema descriptions. Baseline 3 with minor improvement.

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 'Full-text search across the vault' and specifies it returns ranked excerpts (~200 chars) not full notes, distinguishing it from siblings like read_note or list_notes.

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?

It mentions the tool minimizes context usage by returning excerpts, implying use for content-based search. However, it does not explicitly exclude use cases or mention alternatives like list_notes for metadata filtering.

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