search_by_verb

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'verb trigger patterns' which hints at the matching mechanism, but doesn't describe what 'elements' are, the return format, pagination behavior, error conditions, or performance characteristics. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second adds implementation detail. No redundant information or fluff. It could be slightly more front-loaded by moving the examples to the first sentence, but overall it's appropriately concise.

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 search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'elements' are in this context, what format results return, how verb matching works beyond the vague 'trigger patterns', or error handling. Given the complexity of search operations and lack of structured metadata, more contextual information is needed.

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%, providing clear documentation for both parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'verb trigger patterns' and providing examples ('analyze', 'create', 'debug'), but doesn't explain pattern matching rules or result ranking. With comprehensive schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 elements that can handle a specific action verb' with examples provided. It specifies the resource ('elements') and verb ('search'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'search_all' or 'search_collection' by focusing on verb-based matching. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'find_similar_elements' or other search variants, preventing a perfect score.

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 like 'search_all', 'search_collection', or 'find_similar_elements'. It mentions 'verb trigger patterns' but doesn't clarify scenarios where this approach is preferred over other search methods. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated, leaving usage context ambiguous.

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