search_many

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions parallel execution, deduplication, and merged ranking - which are useful behavioral traits. However, it doesn't address critical aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, performance characteristics, or what 'merged ranking' entails. For a tool with 12 parameters and complex behavior, this is insufficient.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded with all essential information in a single, efficient sentence. Every word earns its place by describing core functionality without any fluff or redundancy. This is a model of efficient tool description writing.

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 complex tool with 12 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is woefully incomplete. While it efficiently states the core purpose, it fails to address parameter meanings, usage context, behavioral constraints, or return format. The agent would struggle to use this tool effectively without significant trial and error.

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%, meaning none of the 12 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description provides absolutely no information about any parameters - not even the required 'queries' parameter. With 12 undocumented parameters and no compensation in the description, this represents a critical gap in parameter understanding.

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: 'Search multiple queries in parallel, dedupe the results, and return a merged ranking.' It specifies the verb (search), resource (queries), and key operations (parallel execution, deduplication, merged ranking). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search' or 'search_and_fetch', which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'search' (single query), 'search_and_fetch', and 'fetch_many', there's no indication of when parallel searching with deduplication is preferred over other search methods. This leaves the agent to guess based on the tool name alone.

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