Search the vault

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: ranking order (Capsule and Recall Map hits first), the `state` marker on superseded/expired hits, and that those rank below live hits. It stops short of describing pagination or result shape, but the ranking semantics are genuinely useful.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the tool's identity and scope before ranking detail and the routing hint. No filler; every clause carries 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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by explaining hit ordering and the `state` field, so an agent understands what comes back. It is complete for a read-only search tool, with only minor gaps (no mention of result count behavior).

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both `query` and `limit` (including the default of 20 and the 1-100 range). The description adds no syntax, format, or query-language guidance, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Layer-aware text search across the vault') with the distinguishing scope trait ('layer-aware') front and center, and names the sibling `recall` as the alternative. An agent can tell it apart from `recall` without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'prefer `recall` when you already know which project you need,' which implies search is the choice when the project is unknown. That is a clear alternative-selection rule, though it doesn't spell out the converse case directly.

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