conceptio_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two things annotations cannot convey: the auth requirement and the license-aware access model, which tells the agent results carry rights constraints rather than being freely reusable.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the scope statement followed by the blocking prerequisite and the query syntax example. No filler, though the query directive example is redundant with the schema and could be dropped or used for something more informative.

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?

Scope, auth, and license semantics are covered, but with no output schema the description never hints at the shape of results (do results include citation metadata, licenses, snippets?). For a search tool the agent still has to discover the return format empirically.

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%, so all four parameters are already documented, including the enum for `license` and the category list. The description's only added value is the 'source:nist zero trust' directive hint, which the schema's own `query` description already repeats verbatim, so there is little incremental meaning.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Search the open-access archive') and enumerates the content domains (papers, standards, textbooks, legal sources) plus the license-aware angle. It implicitly separates itself from get_document/download_pdf, but never distinguishes it from the equally named conceptio_search_batch sibling.

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?

It supplies a real prerequisite ('Requires an API key: run `conceptio auth` once first'), which is useful operational context, but gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over conceptio_search_batch or conceptio_graph_walk. Usage is implied by the content scope rather than stated as a selection rule.

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