search_content

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions natural language term extraction, but this is already present in the schema's parameter description. It does not disclose any safety profile (e.g., read-only), output structure, or other behavioral traits beyond what the schema already provides.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and immediately describing the key behavioral addition (natural language extraction). Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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 basic selection and usage, but given there is no output schema and no annotations, it lacks details about return format or pagination. It also does not clarify how it interacts with sibling tools, though the context signals partially compensate. This is a minimum viable description with clear 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?

The schema covers 100% of parameters with detailed descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already documents (e.g., filter enum, limit, language).

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 'JW.Org content' and enumerates content types (articles, videos, publications, audio, scriptures), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_article and get_scripture. It also introduces the natural language extraction behavior, making its scope 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 implies this is the broad search tool for JW.Org content, while siblings get_article and get_scripture are for specific retrieval, but it does not explicitly state 'use this when...' or mention alternatives. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer, but it lacks explicit when-to-use versus alternatives.

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