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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states the basic search action and does not mention result format, relevance ranking, limitations, pagination, or handling of no results. This leaves the agent without critical behavioral information.

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, simple sentence that is concise and front-loaded. It wastes no words and immediately conveys the core functionality. This is an example of effective conciseness, even though more details could be added elsewhere.

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?

The tool is relatively simple, but the description lacks essential context such as what the output will look like, how the limit parameter influences results, and any expected formats or variations. Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description does not fully inform the agent about the tool's behavior.

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 must compensate. It explains the 'query' parameter by stating that entities match the query, but it fails to explain the 'limit' parameter, its purpose, or its effect. The schema only provides a type and default, which is insufficient context for correct usage.

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 a specific verb ('Search'), a specific resource ('fojin's knowledge graph'), and the types of items being sought ('people, places, works, doctrinal terms'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like lookup_dictionary or search_corpus, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 establishes clear context: use this tool to search for entities in a knowledge graph by query. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives (e.g., 'for exact dictionary definitions, use lookup_dictionary'), but the scope is specific enough to imply when it is appropriate.

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