Vascue Public Knowledge Search

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It states the tool searches only public documentation, implying a read-only, safe operation. However, it does not describe the return format, authentication needs, rate limits, or any other behavioral traits. The warning about sensitive data is more of a usage guideline than a behavior disclosure, so the transparency is adequate but incomplete.

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 two concise sentences: the first defines the scope, the second provides usage constraints. There is no unnecessary detail; every sentence contributes to understanding the tool.

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 search tool with no output schema and well-described parameters, the description covers the essential scope. Although ai_search_options is complex and optional, the schema handles its explanation. The tool's purpose is clear, and the absence of sibling tools reduces the need for comparisons. The description is sufficiently complete, though it could mention the optional parameters' availability.

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% for both parameters (query and ai_search_options), so the schema already documents their meaning. The description adds no parameter-specific context, hence the baseline score of 3 applies.

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: to search Vascue's public documentation across specific domains (healthcare-operations, insurance-claims, etc.). The verb 'Search' plus the resource scope makes it distinct, and the mention of 'public' differentiates it from any potential private-data operation.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Use this for public product questions only' and a clear prohibition: 'Never send patient information, claim documents, clinic credentials, or booking requests.' This tells the agent when to use it and what to avoid, even though there are no sibling tools to compare against.

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