search_config

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true), so the bar is lower, and the description goes beyond them by disclosing the return envelope shape and — importantly — that 'truncated: true' means more matches exist and the agent should narrow the query rather than trust the list as complete. That is real operational behavior an agent needs; it stops short of naming the limit source or pagination mechanics.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the return format, then args. The Args block largely restates schema fields, which is mildly redundant, but every line adds a constraint (case-insensitivity, omit-for-default, truncation handling) so it stays efficient.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by documenting the exact response envelope (matches, returned, limit, truncated) and how to react when truncated. Combined with full parameter coverage and the read annotation, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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% (only titles), so the description must carry the burden and does: 'query' is a case-insensitive substring found in both keys and values, and 'target' is a proxy target name that should be omitted for the default. Both parameters are given meaning the schema alone does not provide.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search the config tree for a string') plus the concrete return ('matching config paths'), and even flags the [READ] nature and that results are directly usable by get/set_config_value, which separates it from sibling mutation tools like set_config_value and delete_config_path.

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 by noting results feed into get/set_config_value, giving an implicit workflow, but it never states when to prefer search_config over alternatives such as find_route or route_detail, nor any when-not conditions. Usage is inferable rather than explicit.

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