find_far_definition

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it fetches the full section server-side, parses it, and returns only matching paragraphs. This clarifies the internal operation and return behavior beyond the annotation, though it does not address auth or rate limits (likely not needed for a read tool).

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 compact and well-structured: it opens with the core purpose, adds a brief contextual note, then covers performance and parameter constraints. Every sentence adds value without redundancy or fluff.

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 straightforward: search a term in a known section. The description covers the operation, the size/performance caveat, and parameter constraints. With an output schema present, it does not need to describe return values. The only minor omission is the role of the 'date' parameter, but overall the description is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 required term ('must be at least 3 characters') and max_matches (default 20, max 100, with an example of common terms). The optional 'date' parameter is not described, which is a minor gap, but the other parameters receive useful clarification that the schema lacks.

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 states a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('FAR 2.101 master definition section'), clearly distinguishing this tool from siblings like search_cfr or lookup_far_clause. It immediately communicates the tool's purpose: finding definitions of a term.

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 explains the context (FAR 2.101 contains definitions) but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when to prefer this over search_cfr or lookup_far_clause. It gives a performance caveat about the large section, but no direct usage guidance or exclusions.

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