search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that this hits a 'full-text index' (as opposed to fetching a page), which is useful, but says nothing about ranking, result shape, or rate limits.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose in one line, followed by a compact Args block. Every element earns its place, though the Args formatting is slightly mechanical for a description field.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be described, and annotations cover safety. Still missing is any hint of query syntax or how results relate to the sibling get_page tools, which an agent needs to chain a search into a fetch.

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 carries the full burden and largely meets it: it documents all three parameters, adds a range constraint for limit (1-50) that the schema lacks, and restates defaults. It stops short of explaining query syntax (phrases, operators) or result ordering.

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 Grokipedia full-text index'), which is clear enough for an agent to know it performs a full-text query. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling retrieval tools (get_page, get_page_section, get_page_citations), leaving the search-vs-fetch boundary to inference.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance, and no sibling is named as an alternative. The description says only what the tool does, not when an agent should reach for it over the page-fetching tools.

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