search

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It discloses that results are non-authoritative leads and explains multi-source behavior (fan-out, source tagging, trust tiers, token budget). However, it does not mention ordering, pagination, error behavior, or performance characteristics, leaving gaps.

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?

The description is concise with three well-structured sentences. The first defines core function, the second adds a critical caveat, and the third explains advanced multi-source usage. No redundant information.

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?

Given the tool complexity (10 params, multiple modes, multi-source), the description covers the key functionality and important use cases. However, it lacks details on output format (e.g., snippet structure, metadata) and does not specify ordering or error handling, which would improve completeness.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that 'sources' fans out across backends and that 'mode' is only for single-source queries. This goes beyond the schema descriptions, justifying a higher score.

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 clearly states the tool searches indexed Claude Code transcripts and returns top-k matching message snippets. It distinguishes from sibling tools (list_sessions, recent, reindex, session, stats) which focus on session management or indexing, not content search.

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 description provides clear context: results are leads to verify, never authoritative fact. It explains when to use the 'sources' parameter for multi-source fan-out. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use this tool.

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