search_collection_enhanced

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions pagination, filtering, and sorting as features, but lacks details on critical behaviors like rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or the format of returned results. For a search tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool operates beyond basic functionality.

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 with two sentences: the first states the purpose and key features, and the second provides usage guidelines. Every sentence earns its place by adding value without redundancy, making it easy to scan 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 (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is somewhat incomplete. It covers the high-level purpose and usage but lacks details on behavioral aspects like result format, error cases, or performance characteristics. While the schema handles parameters well, the absence of output schema and annotations means the description should do more to compensate, which it only partially achieves.

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 input schema already documents all parameters thoroughly with descriptions, examples, enums, and defaults. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying the tool supports filtering and sorting, but doesn't provide additional semantic context or usage examples that aren't already covered in the structured fields.

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,' which specifies the verb (search), resource (collection content), and key features. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_collection' or 'search_all,' which appear to be similar search operations, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this specific enhanced version.

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 clear usage context: 'Use this for advanced searches when users need specific content types or want to browse results in pages.' This gives guidance on when to use it (advanced searches with filtering/pagination) but doesn't specify when NOT to use it or name explicit alternatives among the many sibling search tools, such as 'search_collection' or 'search_all,' which could help avoid confusion.

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