search_program

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds that it searches across named fields (mnemonic, addresses, comments, symbols), which is a behavioral trait but already implied by the purpose. It does not disclose return format, pagination, or limitations, but given annotations, a score of 3 is appropriate as minimal additional context.

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 with no fluff. It conveys the essential purpose efficiently. While it is minimal, it avoids redundancy and earns its place, though it might be considered under-specified for a tool with no schema coverage.

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 the tool has 2 required parameters with 0% schema coverage and an existing output schema, the description does not provide enough context. It does not mention expected return format, usage patterns, or any restrictions. For a search tool that likely returns a list of results, the description is insufficient to guide an agent effectively, making it incomplete.

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 must compensate. It explains what 'query' searches (mnemonic text, addresses, comments, and global/local symbols), adding meaning beyond the schema. However, it leaves 'project_id' completely unexplained, and the description does not cover any format or constraints on query, providing only partial semantics.

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 searches mnemonic text, addresses, comments, and global/local symbols, which is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like list_symbols or cross_reference_address. It uses a specific verb (search) and identifies the resource scope, making the purpose clear.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it, differences from similar tools, or prerequisites. The only clue is the description of what it searches, but there is no explicit usage context or exclusions.

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