sd_search_register

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the Lucene fulltext index mechanism, the return format (list of dicts with id/title/desc/type), and implies read-only search behavior. It does not address edge cases like empty results or permission requirements, but for a search operation this is adequate context.

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?

Well-organized with PURPOSE, WHEN TO USE, WHEN NOT TO USE, Args, and Returns sections. Each section provides necessary guidance without redundancy, making the description both concise and informative.

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?

Covers usage triggers, exclusions, parameter meanings, and return shape comprehensively. An output schema exists, so the includes return list is not strictly necessary. It could further differentiate from the sibling mop_search_register, but this is a minor gap given the overall completeness.

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 0%, but the description explains all parameters: query as a search term, register_type with allowed values 'person', 'place', 'work', 'org', or None, and max_results as maximum results. It also adds the ctx parameter context. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states 'Search register using Lucene fulltext index' and PURPOSE explicitly identifies target entities (persons, places, works, organizations). It distinguishes from sibling fulltext search by naming the register scope.

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?

WHEN TO USE bullets list concrete triggers and goals (searching by entity type, biographical/geographical info, getting IDs). WHEN NOT TO USE explicitly points to search_by_keyword() for fulltext search in letters/diaries, providing an alternative.

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