search_lexicons

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'semantic search' and search scope, but does not state whether the operation is read-only, any rate limits, return format, pagination behavior, or other side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation support.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-sentence core action, a supplementary scope sentence, and a clear Args list. It is front-loaded, contains no fluff, and every sentence adds value.

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?

For a simple search tool with an output schema and only two parameters, the description covers the essential purpose and usage. It explicitly differentiates from one sibling and provides parameter context. However, it lacks a brief note on what output format to expect (though output schema exists) and does not position itself relative to all relevant siblings, leaving minor completeness gaps.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description compensates well by explaining each parameter: query is described with illustrative examples and limit includes a range (1-20) and default (10). This adds meaning beyond the schema's bare types and defaults, though it could be slightly more detailed about the query's semantic matching behavior.

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 tool's action ('Search within AT Protocol lexicons using semantic search') and its scoped resource ('lexicon descriptions, property names, types, and definitions'). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from a sibling tool ('More targeted than search_atproto_docs when you specifically need lexicon/schema information'), making its purpose unmistakable.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'More targeted than search_atproto_docs when you specifically need lexicon/schema information.' This names an alternative and states the condition under which this tool is preferred. However, it does not compare against all siblings (e.g., search_bsky_api), leaving some ambiguity for broader choices.

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