search_solutions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey safety and behavior. It discloses that the tool works offline without a database, which is useful, but fails to state whether it is read-only, what it returns, or any other behavioral traits. This leaves the agent uncertain about side effects.

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 27-word sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by a useful offline note. Every word earns its place.

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?

With no output schema and only 2 params, the description is fairly complete but does not explicitly state the return value (e.g., a list of playbooks) or how the limit parameter affects results. This is a minor gap for a simple search tool, making it adequate but not outstanding.

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 descriptions fully cover both parameters (query and limit), so the description does not need to add parameter details. It adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions.

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 the specific verb 'Search' with a clear resource ('curated playbooks') and enumerates relevant topics (ingestion batching, write amplification, etc.). It clearly differentiates from siblings like get_solution and diagnose_symptoms by focusing on search over a curated library.

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?

It provides context for use (searching playbooks for high-volume stream problems) but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria. The 'Works offline' note hints at when to use (no DB required), but lacks direct comparison with sibling tools.

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