search_collection_enhanced

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions pagination, filtering, and sorting, which hints at read-only behavior, but doesn't explicitly state whether this is a safe read operation, what permissions are required, or how errors or rate limits are handled. For a search tool with multiple parameters and no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational traits.

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 concise and well-structured, consisting of two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and usage guidelines. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 complexity with 6 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the core purpose and usage context but lacks details on behavioral aspects like error handling or result format. For an 'enhanced' search tool, more context on what makes it 'enhanced' compared to siblings would improve completeness, but it meets minimum viability.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with detailed parameter documentation including enums and defaults. The description adds minimal value beyond this, as it only broadly mentions 'pagination, filtering, and sorting' without explaining specific parameters like 'elementType' or 'category.' Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, reflecting adequate but not enhanced semantic context.

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 as 'Enhanced search for collection content with pagination, filtering, and sorting,' specifying the verb (search) and resource (collection content) along with key capabilities. It distinguishes from the simpler 'search_collection' sibling by mentioning 'enhanced' features, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other search tools like 'search_all' or 'search_by_verb.'

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'Use this for advanced searches when users need specific content types or want to browse results in pages.' This clearly indicates its intended context for complex queries with filtering and pagination. However, it doesn't specify when not to use it or name alternatives among the many sibling search tools, such as 'search_collection' for basic searches.

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