Search components

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool is a 'ranked' search and lists return fields, but does not explicitly confirm it is read-only, mention authorization needs, rate limits, or pagination behavior.

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 long, front-loads the key action ('Ranked keyword search'), and includes return fields. Every sentence is informative 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?

For a simple one-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, search scope, and return format. It is mostly complete, though it could mention whether results are paginated or limited.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for the single parameter 'query'. The description adds value by specifying the parameter is used for 'keyword search across id, domain, regulatory, purpose, whenToUse', which goes beyond the bare 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 performs a 'ranked keyword search' across specific fields (id, domain, regulatory, purpose, whenToUse) and returns ids, purpose, and score. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_components (lists all) and get_component (fetches by ID).

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 implies usage for keyword searches but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_components or other search tools (e.g., find_by_regulation). No exclusion criteria or alternative names are provided.

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