Search Fulltext

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing beyond capability: no auth/permission requirements, no rate limits, no cost difference between local and cloud sources, and no note on result ordering or pagination. Only the existence of matching modes is conveyed.

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?

A single efficient sentence with the core capability front-loaded and no filler. It is arguably too terse for a six-parameter tool, but as a conciseness judgment it wastes nothing.

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 six-parameter search tool with no annotations, the one-sentence description leaves major gaps: it does not help the agent disambiguate from the 'search' sibling or explain the local-vs-cloud source tradeoff. An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but the selection and behavior gaps remain.

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 parameter meanings are already documented in the schema (top_k, source, combine_mode, pattern_type, etc.). The description hints at 'exact/regex/boolean logic', loosely mapping to pattern_type and combine_mode, but adds no syntax examples or format details beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('full text search') and enumerates its matching modes (exact, regex, boolean). It is clear on its own, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'search', so an agent cannot tell which search variant to pick from the description alone.

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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of the several sibling search tools (search, search_by_author, search_by_year). The agent is left to infer selection criteria entirely from the name.

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