search

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It discloses the core behavior—searching only bookable businesses by name/slug and returning IDs—but does not mention result limits, ordering, exact/partial matching, or failure behavior. It is not misleading but leaves some behavioral unknowns.

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 entire description is one efficient sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then adds the return contract and downstream usage. No filler; every clause contributes.

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 one-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers the input semantics, the scope, and the output in sufficient detail for an agent to call it and connect results to fetch or booking tools. Additional details like pagination or empty-result handling would be helpful but are not critical.

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 only defines a 'query' string with no description. The description adds critical meaning: the query should be a business name or slug, and the search is limited to bookable businesses. This compensates for the 0% schema coverage, though format details (case sensitivity, partial matches) are absent.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Search'), identifies the resource ('bookable businesses on G-Guest'), and states the query method ('by name or slug'). It also explains the return value ('ids'), which clearly separates it from sibling tools like fetch and get_business that presumably operate on already-known IDs.

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 explains that the tool returns IDs usable with fetch or booking tools, giving an implicit usage path for when search is the appropriate first step. It does not explicitly state exclusions (e.g., use fetch when you already have an ID), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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