reading_search_chunks

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already covers the non-destructive nature of the operation. The description adds no further behavioral disclosure such as result ordering, pagination, matching semantics, or scope of the search, so it contributes little beyond the annotation.

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 clean sentence with no filler, and the main action is front-loaded. It is appropriately short, though a second sentence could add scope details without hurting readability.

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 simple read-only search with flat parameters, the description plus schema gives a minimally viable picture. But the lack of output schema and absence of details about result format, bookId behavior, and limit semantics leave meaningful gaps for an agent.

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 schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate, but it only clarifies that 'query' is a keyword. It says nothing about 'limit' or 'bookId', leaving their meaning and optionality to be inferred from names alone.

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 a clear verb ('Search') and a specific resource ('book chunks') with a keyword mechanism. It distinguishes the tool from list/read siblings by indicating a keyword-based lookup, though it does not clarify whether the search spans all books or is confined to one book.

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 intended use is inferable: call this tool when you need to find chunks by keyword rather than listing or reading chunks. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over siblings like reading_find_passage or reading_list_chunks.

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