ipa_search

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

No annotations exist, so the description bears the full disclosure burden. It usefully discloses match semantics (regular expression, case-insensitive) and the shape of each hit (page, nearest heading, line), but says nothing about behavior on invalid regex, result truncation, or search cost/limits across 'every page'.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler. Scope and match semantics are front-loaded before the illustrative examples, and every clause carries information an agent can act on.

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?

An output schema exists, so the hit fields need not be fully explained. Still, for a 0%-coverage two-parameter tool, the description omits result-count limiting behavior and failure modes, leaving gaps an agent would hit on invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does clarify that 'pattern' is a case-insensitive regular expression, which is real added meaning, but 'max_hits' (default 40) is never mentioned, leaving truncation behavior undocumented.

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 ('Search every page and the measurement READMEs') with an explicit scope, which is more than most siblings convey. It does not differentiate itself from sibling lookup tools such as ipa_find or ipa_page, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

Concrete example queries ('is napari installed', 'TeamViewer', 'correction collar', a filter name, a software version) imply when this tool is appropriate. However, it never states when not to use it or names an alternative like ipa_find, so the routing decision against siblings is left to inference.

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