search_indicators

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions searching all available indicators and returning a JSON string, but does not disclose side effects, authentication, rate limits, or whether it is read-only (though implied). This is minimal behavioral disclosure.

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 a clear purpose statement, arg descriptions, return type, and examples. Every sentence serves a purpose with no redundancy.

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 simplicity (2 parameters, no annotations, output schema exists), the description is largely complete. It covers search behavior, parameters, and examples. The output is described as 'JSON string with matching indicator metadata', which suffices since the output schema presumably details the structure.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds significant value by explaining the keyword parameter is searched in name/short name, giving concrete examples, and stating the limit parameter's default. This goes beyond the bare schema definition.

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 indicators by keyword in their names or short names, which is specific and distinct from the sibling tools (e.g., list_indicators lists all, get_indicator_data retrieves data for a specific indicator). The verb 'search' and resource 'indicators' are precise.

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 examples and default limit but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_indicators or get_indicator_data. No exclusion or comparative guidance is given, leaving the agent to infer usage from examples.

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