search_calculator

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. The verb 'Find' implies a read-only search and the pipeline clarifies it does not calculate or retrieve directly, but the description does not disclose result format, ordering, or behavior when no calculators match.

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 focused sentence plus a compact workflow arrow. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and contains no filler, though it is terse enough that some parameter guidance is omitted.

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 simple two-parameter search tool, the purpose and next-step workflow are reasonably clear. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description does not explain what the search result looks like or how top_k affects the response, leaving some inference burden on the agent.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does connect 'query' to a natural-language question, but 'top_k' is not explained at all, and the description adds no detail about how results are ranked or filtered.

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 states a specific verb ('Find'), a clear resource ('optics calculators'), and the input style ('natural-language question'). The arrow to get_calculator and calculate clearly distinguishes this as the discovery step among its siblings.

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 arrow '→ get_calculator → calculate' provides an explicit workflow: search first, then retrieve the calculator, then calculate. This gives clear context for when to use the tool, though it does not mention exclusions or when alternative search tools would be preferable.

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