search_nodes

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. While it mentions the search functionality, it doesn't describe what happens during execution - whether it's read-only or has side effects, what permissions are required, how results are returned, or any rate limits. The description is too minimal for a search tool with no annotation support.

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 sentence that directly states the tool's function. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and uses efficient phrasing.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and minimal parameter documentation, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'entities and relations' mean in this context, how results are structured, whether there are pagination or filtering options, or any operational constraints. The description leaves too many questions unanswered for effective tool 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 description mentions 'text or vector similarity' which aligns with the schema's oneOf structure for the query parameter. However, with 0% schema description coverage, the description doesn't add meaningful details about parameter usage, format requirements, or search behavior. It provides basic context but doesn't compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 searching for entities and their relations using text or vector similarity. It specifies both the resource (entities and relations) and the method (text or vector similarity search). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'read_graph' which might also involve reading/searching operations.

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. It doesn't mention when this search tool should be used instead of 'read_graph' or other siblings, nor does it provide any context about prerequisites, limitations, or appropriate scenarios for text versus vector search.

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