Search Access to Insight

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuine behavioral trait beyond that: it queries the site's own sutta and subject indexes and falls back to an official GitHub mirror, which tells the agent results may come from a secondary source. It does not disclose result shape, pagination, or any rate/timeout behavior.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb and resource first and the mechanism/fallback in a trailing parenthetical. No filler, though the fallback detail is compressed rather than explained.

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 with no output schema, the agent knows what is searched and where results originate, which is adequate. What is missing is how the query string is interpreted and roughly what a result contains, which matters for choosing this over the many other search/lookup siblings.

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 carry parameter meaning and largely does not. It hints that 'query' matches sutta references or subject topics via the two indexes, but never says whether Pali terms, English titles, or free text are accepted, and 'limit' (1-30, default 10) is not mentioned at all.

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 gives a specific verb ('Find') with a precise resource ('Access to Insight translations, study guides and topics') and names the retrieval path ('sutta and subject indexes'), which implicitly separates it from the fetching sibling get_access_to_insight_text. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling or stating how it differs from search_texts, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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?

Use is implied by the resource and index names: search this site's indexes to discover material, then presumably fetch with get_access_to_insight_text. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement, no mention of how it differs from broader siblings like search_texts or search_post_canonical, and no guidance on query framing.

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