search_summaries_fts

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds detail: it uses FTS5 index, performs exact matching filters, and returns a structure with success and data. This provides behavioral context beyond 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 well-structured: a clear purpose sentence then a parameter list and return type. It is concise without unnecessary fluff, though the parameter list is somewhat redundant with the schema.

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 has an output schema (sibling context says Has output schema: true), the description only needs minimal return info. It covers the main use case, FTS5 capability, and optional filters. Adequate for the 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?

The description lists parameters and their meanings, but the input schema already provides descriptions for all properties (100% coverage). The description does not add significant new meaning beyond restating schema descriptions, so baseline 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 it uses FTS5 full-text index to search session summaries and is suitable for precise keyword matching. This specifies the resource (session summaries) and action (search via FTS5), and hints at differentiation from sibling tools like search_summaries.

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 mentions 'suitable for precise keyword matching scenarios' which implies when to use, but it does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives. It lacks explicit usage guidelines beyond that.

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