search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it discloses exact case-insensitive matching, OR logic across keywords, and scope behavior across SKILL.md files and subcategories. These are non-obvious behavioral details that an agent needs to predict results correctly.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then moves efficiently through matching behavior and scoping rules. Every sentence adds distinct information, and there is no filler or redundant restating of the tool name.

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 two-parameter search tool, the description covers selection and invocation well, including matching semantics and category scoping. It would be slightly stronger if it specified the return format more concretely, but 'Any keyword match returns the item' gives a reasonable expectation in the absence of an output schema.

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 coverage is already 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining how keyword matching behaves ('any keyword match returns the item') and how the category parameter changes search scope. This meaningfully supplements the schema without repeating it.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search for categories or skills by keywords.' It goes beyond a generic statement by detailing exact matching, case-insensitivity, OR logic, and global vs. category-scoped behavior, which makes its purpose easy to distinguish from sibling tools like list, read, and help.

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 gives clear context for when to include or omit the category parameter: 'Without a category, searches globally... With a category, searches within that category's skills and subcategories.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use this tool, but the scoping guidance is direct and actionable.

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