searchSubgraphs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool returns 'a concise list of matching subgraphs with their IDs, names, networks, and signal, or an error message,' which gives some output context. However, it lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, pagination, error conditions beyond generic 'error message,' or whether it's read-only (implied but not stated). For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by Args and Returns sections. It uses clear, efficient language with no redundant information. However, the Returns section could be more concise by integrating details into the main description, and some sentences (e.g., 'or an error message') are slightly verbose.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and output format but lacks depth in usage guidelines, behavioral details, and parameter semantics. For a search tool interacting with a network, more context on limitations or typical use cases would improve completeness.

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 description adds minimal semantic value beyond the input schema. It states 'searchQuery (str): The search term to find matching subgraphs,' which clarifies the parameter's purpose but doesn't provide format examples, constraints (e.g., length, special characters), or search behavior (e.g., partial matches, case sensitivity). With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this meets the baseline but doesn't compensate for the coverage gap.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Search for subgraphs on The Graph Network by name or description.' It specifies the action (search), resource (subgraphs), and scope (The Graph Network). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'getSubgraphSchema' or 'querySubgraph' beyond the search focus.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions searching by name or description but doesn't specify scenarios where this is preferred over sibling tools like 'getSubgraphSchema' (likely for schema retrieval) or 'querySubgraph' (likely for querying data). No prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative context are provided.

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