pws_search

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

Annotations already declare the tool as readonly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds the scope of the search and the entry-point hint, but does not disclose behaviors like result format, pagination, or matching rules. With annotations covering safety, this is adequate but lacks rich behavioral detail.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the verb 'Search', and contains no filler. It efficiently states the scope and the primary use case, making every word value-bearing.

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?

The tool has no output schema, and the description does not explain what the search returns, how results are structured, or how to refine searches with categories. While the 'name to ID' hint suggests output includes IDs, the lack of behavioral detail makes the description incomplete for a search tool with three parameters.

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%, and the description provides no guidance on the query, limit, or categories parameters. The schema's property names and enum values are self-explanatory, but the description does not compensate for the absence of parameter documentation, leaving the agent to rely solely on the schema.

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 searches across a broad set of PWS entities and explicitly identifies the primary use case ('Start here when resolving a name to an ID'). This distinguishes it from sibling getter tools, which focus on retrieving specific entities.

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 a clear context for when to use this tool ('Start here when resolving a name to an ID'), implying it is the entry point for name resolution. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, which would make it fully explicit.

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