search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only 'compact results', which hints at a terse return shape but doesn't explain paging, default result count, or what fields come back. That is a modest add beyond structured data, hence a middle score rather than a high one.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no waste, but it is under-specified rather than lean — the brevity comes at the cost of information the agent needs. Short is good here; empty is not.

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?

With no output schema, four undocumented parameters, and a free-text query, the agent needs more: what the index covers, whether query matches readings or meanings, how limit interacts with defaults, and what a compact result looks like. None of that is present, so the definition is not sufficient to invoke the tool with confidence.

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%, so all four parameters (query, limit, vocab, grammar) rely entirely on the description, which says nothing about any of them. 'Grammar and vocabulary' faintly gestures at the two booleans but doesn't explain that they act as result-type toggles defaulting to true, and limit/maximum 100 goes unmentioned. The description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 (search) and the resource (Bunpro grammar and vocabulary), plus a result characteristic ('compact results'). Sibling tools are all user-data getters (get_vocab, get_due, get_weak_items), so this is the only search tool — no ambiguity needs resolving. The only weakness is that 'compact results' doesn't say what a result record contains.

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 statement of when to use this versus a sibling such as get_vocab or get_learning_content, and no guidance on when to set vocab/grammar flags to narrow scope. The agent must infer that this is the right tool for finding grammar points or vocab entries by text.

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