search_tools

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that results include full input schemas and mentions searching across downstream servers. However, it does not discuss potential side effects, failure modes, or performance implications. For a read-only search tool, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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, efficiently communicates purpose, output, and usage hint. No wasted words, front-loaded with key information.

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 tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description covers the main aspects: what it searches, what it returns, and when to use it. Missing details about default/limit behavior and result format, but generally complete for its complexity level.

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 coverage is 50%: the 'query' parameter is described fully, but 'limit' has no description in schema nor in the tool description. The description adds context for the overall search behavior but does not explain the 'limit' parameter, which is only partially compensated.

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', resource 'tools across downstream servers', and scope 'by keyword'. It also specifies the return value 'full input schemas for matches'. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_tool_categories (which lists categories) and invoke_tool (which invokes a tool).

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?

Explicitly says 'Use before invoke_tool', providing clear contextual guidance. However, it does not mention when not to use it or provide alternative tools, so it's not a full 5.

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