Search chains

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by disclosing search behavior (exact/partial/fuzzy, relevance ranking) and the structure of each chain (name, chainNames, websites, locationCount), which enriches the agent's understanding beyond structured fields.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and search mode, followed by concise details about the return fields and usage hint. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 two parameters and no output schema, the description is complete: it explains what is searched, how it is matched, what is returned, and how to interpret the result for downstream usage. This fully equips the agent to invoke the tool effectively.

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%, so both pageSize and chainName are already documented with descriptive text. The description reinforces that search is by name but doesn't add parameter-specific constraints or syntax beyond what the schema provides. It does add context about returned fields, but that's more output semantics than parameter semantics.

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 searches business chains by name with exact/partial/fuzzy matching, and specifies the resource (business chains) and the outcome (ranked by relevance). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_locations by focusing on chain-level search rather than listing locations.

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 gives clear context on when to use this tool (searching for a chain by name) and even explains how to use the result ('Use the chain name when relating a location to its brand'). It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the intended use case is well implied.

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