search_intents

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds behavioral detail: it uses LIKE substring matching and returns newest matches first. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand result ordering.

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 with no redundant words. It front-loads the core functionality and immediately gives a use case.

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?

The description covers purpose, ordering, and a practical use case. Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of read-only annotations, this is sufficient for an agent to decide when to use it. It does not need to explain output format since there is no output schema.

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?

Only the query parameter has a description in the schema; limit and project are undocumented. The tool description does not add any explanation for limit or project, leaving these parameters ambiguous. With 33% schema coverage, the description should have compensated, but it does not.

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 exactly what it does: substring search over user prompts using LIKE. Also specifies result ordering (newest first). The verb 'search' is specific and unambiguous.

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?

Provides a clear use case ('what did I ask about X') and contrasts with a manual alternative (mining transcripts). Does not explicitly name sibling tools that might be more suitable for other types of search, so the guidance is good but not fully explicit about exclusions.

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