Search OpenConstruction resources

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior, but it only names the action and scope. It does not explain whether results are ranked, how filtering works, whether pagination exists, or what the response looks like. While 'Search' implies a read-only operation, no behavioral depth is provided.

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, focused sentence with no filler words. The list of resource types is dense but relevant. It is efficient, though it could have used the space to add behavioral or usage context.

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 tool with three parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and many sibling tools, this description is too thin. It does not cover return values, query semantics, or when to choose this over specialized search siblings, leaving an agent to infer important details.

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 the description should compensate for the undocumented query and limit parameters. It lists the resource categories, which map to the types enum, but it does not explain the query parameter, limit constraints, or how multiple types are combined.

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 a specific action ('Search') and the resource scope ('OpenConstruction resources'), enumerating nine concrete resource types. It is distinct from an abstract placeholder, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like find_datasets or find_models.

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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as find_datasets, find_models, or get_resource. The description only states what it searches, not the context that should trigger selection.

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