search_pages

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'intelligent filtering' but doesn't elaborate on what that entails (e.g., ranking, pagination, rate limits, or authentication needs). For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this lacks critical operational details.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without redundancy. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with no wasted words, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a search tool with 5 parameters. It doesn't explain result format, error handling, or the 'intelligent filtering' mentioned, leaving gaps in understanding the tool's behavior and output.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting all 5 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, such as query syntax or filtering logic. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles all parameter documentation.

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 purpose: 'Search pages across Scrapbox projects with intelligent filtering.' It specifies the verb ('search'), resource ('pages'), and scope ('across Scrapbox projects'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'analyze_connections' or 'extract_themes' beyond the search focus.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'intelligent filtering' but doesn't specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, nor does it reference sibling tools for comparison, leaving usage context ambiguous.

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