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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only states the scope of the search but does not describe how results are returned, whether there are limits or pagination, how relevance is determined, or any other behavioral trait. This is a significant gap for a tool that performs an open-ended search.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and scope. Every word contributes meaning, with no fluff or redundancy.

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 simple with one parameter, and the description accurately defines its scope. While it lacks return-format details, the absence of an output schema and the straightforward nature of a full-text search make the description reasonably complete. It could benefit from mentioning result ranking or filtering, but it is 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 schema covers the single parameter with a generic 'Search query' description, and the tool description adds some context by indicating what the query searches across. However, it does not provide syntax, format, or example values beyond what the schema already states, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 uses a specific verb 'search' and clearly identifies the resource: 'Falcon's frontier design reference'. It also enumerates the types of content covered (terms, technologies, file formats, etc.), which distinguishes it from sibling tools that perform more specific actions like compare, convert, get, or identify.

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 implies usage for general discovery across the reference, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives like get_definition or identify_format. No exclusions or alternative suggestions are provided, leaving the guidance implicit.

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