Search the Radar

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower; the description adds the useful filter-without-query listing mode and the shape of returned fields. It omits ordering semantics ('in order' is unexplained) and any paging behavior beyond the limit parameter.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste, capabilities front-loaded before the return/behavior note. Nothing repeats the tool name or title verbatim.

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?

Covers query, dimension, intelligence and enterprise filters but silently omits the sector parameter, one of six. Since an output schema exists, describing return fields is optional padding rather than a completeness gain; ordering and routing to sibling retrieval tools remain unaddressed.

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 coverage is 100%, so every parameter already carries its own description, examples and enums. The description only restates that filters are optional and that a queryless filter call lists results, adding no format or combination semantics beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb ('Find entries') and the match surface (topic, technology, practice, keyword), plus the optional filter axes. An agent can distinguish this from get_entry (single entry) without opening the schema, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: query to search, filters alone to list. It never says when to prefer show_radar, list_judgements, get_dimension or get_entry instead, and gives no exclusions or prerequisites.

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