search_function_repository

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

With no annotations, description bears full burden. It only says 'Search', implying a read operation, but omits details on side effects, permissions, rate limits, or pagination behavior.

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?

Extremely concise (one sentence). No unnecessary words, but could benefit from a structured breakdown of parameters or examples. Still, it is well-front-loaded and brief.

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?

Given the existence of an output schema, description need not detail return values, but it lacks context about search behavior (e.g., fuzzy matching, ranking). For a search tool with two parameters, more completeness is expected.

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%. Description adds no meaning beyond parameter names and types from schema. 'query' and 'max_results' are self-explanatory but description should have clarified, e.g., what kind of query or max results count.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'Search' and resource 'Wolfram Function Repository', distinguishing from sibling 'search_data_repository' and 'get_function_repository_info'. It is specific and unambiguous.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_function_repository_info' or 'load_resource_function'. Missing context on prerequisites or typical use cases.

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