search_nodes

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description needs only to add non-obvious behavioral context. It discloses a crucial behavior: results are capped, and total_matched is returned to signal truncation. This goes beyond annotations and helps the agent understand that search results may be incomplete yet explicitly indicated. Does not contradict annotations.

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 extremely concise: two sentences totaling 21 words. It front-loads the primary purpose and then adds a single valuable behavioral nuance. No redundancy or wasted words; every element earns its place.

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 and full parameter coverage in the schema, the description doesn't need to explain return values or parameters. It adds the essential nuance about result capping and total_matched, which is critical for the agent to interpret search results correctly. The description is complete for this tool's complexity.

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 100%, so all five parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning (e.g., what query matches against, what domain/entity_type filter, or how limit/max_relations work), which is already covered. Given high schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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's function: 'Search the knowledge graph'—a specific verb with a clear resource. It differentiates from siblings like search_thoughts (which likely targets thoughts specifically) and read_graph (a broader read operation) by focusing on search behavior. The added boundedness detail further distinguishes it as a search with explicit result handling.

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 implies usage: use this to search the knowledge graph. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over alternatives like search_thoughts or read_graph, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. The context is clear but lacks explicit guidance on alternatives or when not to use.

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