search_capabilities

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description adds that it is a keyword search but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as result limits, pagination, or whether it returns full documents or snippets. No contradiction with annotations.

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 extremely concise: two sentences and examples. Every word adds value, front-loading the purpose and illustrating usage without waste.

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 lack of output schema, the description does not explain return values or structure. With only one parameter and simple annotations, the description is adequate but could be improved by noting what type of results (e.g., list of capabilities with IDs) are returned.

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 only defines 'query' as a string with 0% coverage. The description compensates by providing realistic query examples, which help the agent understand acceptable inputs and format.

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 keyword search across FEODE products/specs, with concrete examples ('subsea wellhead 15000 psi') that show the scope. This verb+resource definition distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on specific domains like drill pipe or certifications.

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 but does not specify when to use this tool vs. alternatives like search_drill_pipe or get_product_specs. It lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or the scope boundaries relative to siblings.

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