search_cubes_by_title

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals important traits: case-insensitive matching, lite format exclusion, AND logic, result capping, error types, and a mandatory citation requirement. This is substantial coverage beyond the basic search functionality, though it doesn't cover authentication or rate limits.

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 well-structured with distinct paragraphs for purpose, behavior, citation requirement, and errors. Each sentence contributes unique information without fluff or repetition. It is appropriately sized for the complexity.

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 no output schema, the description explains the return format (lite format, excluding dimensions/footnotes) and error conditions. It doesn't enumerate the lite format fields, but that is a known concept from sibling tools. The description is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool effectively.

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 100% with both parameters described, so baseline is 3. The description adds extra semantics for search_term (English/French title, case-insensitive) and reiterates AND logic, which adds value beyond the schema. It also clarifies the default behavior of max_results.

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 clearly states the verb 'searches' and the resource 'data cubes/tables', specifying that it searches English or French titles case-insensitively. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_all_cubes_list_lite, which return full lists without search capability. The scope is 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?

The description provides clear context for when to use this tool: when searching for cubes by title. It explains AND logic and the max_results cap, which informs usage. Though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, the context is sufficient to guide selection among sibling tools.

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