FREE: keyword-search the wind-down legal-notice archive (e.g. 'receivership', 'assignment for benefit of creditors', 'assignee', a company name). Returns matching notice headers + links you can feed into abc_asset_map.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results (default 15). | |
| keyword | Yes | Search term (required). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, description must disclose behavioral traits. It indicates a read operation and mentions 'FREE', but lacks details on rate limits, pagination, or data freshness.
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?
Two concise sentences with no fluff. Provides examples and links to sibling tool efficiently.
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?
For a simple search tool with few parameters and no output schema, description covers purpose, examples, and follow-up action. Missing details on empty results or error handling, but sufficient for most cases.
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%, but description adds value with search term examples and output context (headers+links), going beyond schema's parameter descriptions.
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 searches a specific archive (wind-down legal notices) with keyword examples, and distinguishes from siblings by noting output can feed into abc_asset_map.
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?
Provides examples of when to use (searching for legal terms or company names) and implies a follow-up step, but does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct purpose: feed, search, or map for either ABC or WARN contexts. The descriptions clearly differentiate between the two distress event types and the map functions.
All names use lowercase with underscores, follow a consistent pattern with domain prefixes (abc_, warn_) followed by a descriptive verb_noun or noun_noun combination.
Five tools is well-scoped for the server's purpose of providing distress event feeds and generating asset maps. The count is neither too few nor excessive.
Coverage is good: feeds for both ABC and WARN events, a search for ABC notices, and map functions for both. A minor gap is the lack of a dedicated search for WARN notices, but the feed is available.