search_records

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the tool searches for matching text but does not disclose case sensitivity, exact vs. fuzzy matching, result ordering, pagination, or any side effects. The agent is left without critical runtime behavior information.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and target. It is efficient in word count, but it omits essential details, so while it is concise, it is not comprehensive. It earns a 4 for brevity without waste, but lacks the structural depth expected for a tool with multiple parameters.

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 has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. It fails to explain how to form a query, what valid input types are, the semantics of date filters, or the response format. An agent would struggle to invoke this tool correctly without further information.

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 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain any of the five parameters. It does not clarify what 'query' means, how 'from'/'to' are formatted, what 'limit' controls, or how 'types' restricts the search. The only loose hint is 'journal and input' which vaguely maps to the types enum, but this is not explicit.

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 searches journal and input Markdown files for matching text, specifying both the action and the resource types. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_records_by_date_range, which could also involve searching or retrieving records, so it lacks distinguishing context.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or scenarios where this search tool is preferred over capture or date-range retrieval tools. The agent receives no help in selecting the correct tool.

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