search_repertory

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that results are sorted by relevance, that remedies come with weights, and describes the default repertory behavior when repertory param is omitted. However, it doesn't describe pagination behavior or what the detailed output schema contains beyond rubrics/remedies/weights, which is partially covered by the output schema existing.

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?

Two sentences, both informative. The first establishes purpose and the search syntax; the second describes output format and behavior. No wasted words, though it could add a brief note about when to use this vs search_materia_medica without breaking its economy.

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 presence of an output schema, the description doesn't need to detail return values. However, with 5 parameters, no annotations, and a moderately complex query language, the description captures the essentials but leaves gaps around result size behavior, pagination, and error handling when no matches are found. Slightly above minimal viable given the output schema exists.

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 100%, so the schema does substantial work for all 5 parameters. The description adds value by explaining the overall search syntax (wildcards, exclusions, exact phrases) and the output structure (rubrics with remedies sorted by relevance). It supplements rather than duplicates the schema's parameter documentation.

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?

Uses specific verb 'search' with a clear resource 'homeopathic repertories', states what it returns (matching rubrics with remedies), and explains output ordering (by relevance with weights). Distinguishes from siblings by specifying repertories specifically vs. materia medica, making it clear which sibling to use.

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 clearly states what the tool does and the input syntax (wildcards, exclusions, exact phrases). However, it doesn't explicitly say when NOT to use it or mention that search_materia_medica is the alternative for materia medica searches. The repertory parameter references list_available_repertories for discovery, providing some guidance.

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