search_motions

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

Annotations already convey that this is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds a useful detail about the return payload ('paginated results with motion items and category aggregation information'), which goes slightly beyond the annotations, but it does not disclose deeper behavior such as default ordering, filter combination logic, or pagination token usage, though some of that is covered by the schema.

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 sentences with no filler. The main action and filter capabilities are front-loaded, and the return summary is included without unnecessary elaboration.

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 read-only search tool, the description is reasonably complete: all six parameters have schema documentation, the safety profile is covered by annotations, and the return shape is summarized despite the lack of an output schema. It could be more complete by explaining the relationship to list_motions or clarifying what 'category aggregation information' means, but the core information needed to call it correctly is present.

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 description does not need to repeat parameter details. It does mention the filter dimensions (category, subcategory, tags, search term) which aligns with the schema, but it adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 ('Searches'), identifies the resource ('motion library'), and states the main capabilities: optional filtering and pagination. It is clear, but it does not explicitly call out how it differs from the sibling list_motions tool, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 tool is for filtering the motion library by category, subcategory, tags, or text, and for paginating results. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to use search_motions instead of list_motions or another sibling, and it does not state any exclusions or alternatives.

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