search_framework

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to restate those. It adds useful behavioral detail about result shape, including the aigf:// citation URI and snippet semantics, which goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 compact sentences front-load the core purpose, then add output-shape details and a usage tip. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or repetition.

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 read-only search tool with a strong annotation profile and an output schema, the description covers the key behavioral aspects: target resources, hit structure, and scope filtering. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 needed to explain parameters. It only clarifies 'scope' and implies that 'query' is free-text, while 'k' receives no explanation. With low schema coverage, this compensation is incomplete.

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 opens with 'Full-text search over risks and controls,' which gives a specific verb, resource, and scope. It also enumerates hit fields (id, matching section, snippet, aigf:// citation URI), making the tool's purpose concrete and distinguishable from sibling get/list tools.

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?

The phrase 'Full-text search' implies when to use it, and 'Use scope to limit to risks or controls' gives parameter-level guidance. However, it does not explicitly contrast this tool with sibling tools like list_risks, get_risk, search_status, or map_risks_to_controls, nor does it state when search is preferable to direct lookup.

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