search_directory

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses caching behavior (24-hour default) and mentions CSG's school structure, which adds useful context. However, it lacks critical behavioral details: no information on permissions required, rate limits, error handling, or what the search returns (e.g., result format, pagination). The caching detail is helpful but insufficient for full transparency.

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 reasonably concise with two sentences, though the second sentence includes extraneous background about CSG's Forms and schools that doesn't directly aid tool selection. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, but could be tighter by focusing only on tool-relevant details.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a 7-parameter search tool. It misses key contextual elements: what the output looks like (e.g., list of people with fields), authentication requirements hinted by the userEmail parameter, and how search logic works (e.g., partial matches). The caching and school info are helpful but don't compensate for these 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 7 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain how parameters interact (e.g., combining firstName and lastName) or provide examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate with additional insights.

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 the CSG directory for students, parents, and staff, providing a specific verb (search) and resource (directory). It distinguishes from siblings like 'check_authentication' or 'school_events' by focusing on directory lookup, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential similar search tools that might exist.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions CSG uses Forms instead of grades and lists schools, but this is background info, not usage instructions. There's no mention of prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'check_authentication' for auth needs.

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