search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the basic action and target scope, adding no insight into read-only nature, result limits, search matching semantics, permissions, or side effects.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that communicates the tool's essence without any wasted words. It is appropriately concise for the tool's simplicity.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple search tool, covering the core purpose and relying on a well-documented schema for parameters. However, with no output schema and no annotation, it does not explain return values, result format, or any search limitations, leaving some gaps for an agent fully understanding the tool.

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?

The input schema already describes both parameters thoroughly (query as 'Search keyword' and type with enum explanations). The description adds no new information about parameters beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for 100% schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb 'search' with a clear resource scope ('questions, dashboards, and tables') and mechanism ('by keyword'). This distinguishes it from sibling list/get tools, which enumerate or retrieve specific items.

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 clearly implies a use case: finding items across multiple types by keyword. It provides clear context but does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives (e.g., when to use list_dashboards instead).

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