search-all

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 only states what the tool searches for, without mentioning how results are returned, pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication requirements, or any side effects. For a search tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 extremely concise - a single Japanese phrase that efficiently communicates the core functionality. Every word earns its place, and there's no wasted verbiage. The structure is front-loaded with the essential 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?

Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what the search returns, how results are structured, or any behavioral characteristics. For a search tool that likely returns complex results across multiple entity types, more context about the output format and behavior would be necessary for effective use.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema descriptions. It mentions the search targets (user, hashtag, note) which aligns with the 'context' parameter, but this is redundant with the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 tool's purpose as 'note全体検索' (note-wide search) and specifies the search targets: users, hashtags, and notes. It uses a specific verb ('検索' - search) and identifies the resource scope. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'search-notes' or 'search-users', which appear to be more targeted searches.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling search tools (search-notes, search-users, search-magazines), there's no indication of when this comprehensive search is preferred over the more specific ones. No prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative context is mentioned.

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