jev_catalog_search

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

Even with readOnlyHint and destructiveHint already covering safety, the description adds meaningful behavioral context: results are from a local cache, so refresh is required, and search scores are explicitly not proof of correctness, permission, or capability. This materially shapes how an agent should interpret results.

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 five short sentences, front-loads the core purpose, and every sentence carries actionable information: purpose, return shape, precondition, routing to get, and an interpretation caveat. No filler or schema repetition.

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 low-complexity, read-only search tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the description covers purpose, caveats, and workflow. It only falls short by leaving server_id and limit behavior to the schema, which has no parameter descriptions.

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 0%, yet the description adds almost nothing about the three parameters. It implies query semantics through 'lexical relevance,' but says nothing about limit behavior, server_id selection, or how query strings are matched; the schema only provides names/defaults, no descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search the cached tool catalog locally.' It also states the return shape ('compact hits and their catalog version'), and the reference to jev_catalog_get distinguishes it from the schema-retrieval sibling.

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?

It gives an explicit precondition ('Refresh first'), directs the agent to jev_catalog_get instead of this tool when exact schemas are needed, and warns that scores indicate lexical relevance, not correctness or permission—so the agent knows when not to rely on them.

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