discover_tool_search

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the search algorithm (BM25-lite), result structure, and namespace filtering. However, it does not explicitly state it is read-only or non-destructive, though implied. Adequate but not exceptional.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the main action, no fluff. Clearly structured with purpose, mechanism, parameters, and usage tip.

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 and the presence of an output schema, the description covers inputs, return format, and usage context. It doesn't discuss edge cases like empty results, but this is acceptable for a search tool.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains all three parameters: query, top_k (with default), and namespace (with example). This adds meaning beyond the schema types and defaults.

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 verb 'fuzzy search', the resource 'Nexus tool catalogue', and what it returns (top_k tools per query scored by BM25-lite). It distinguishes from sibling tools which are domain-specific (areas, automations, etc.) by positioning this as a discovery tool.

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 explicitly says to use this tool to discover the right tool name before calling it, avoiding memorization of ~250 tools. This provides clear context. Missing explicit 'when not to use' or alternatives, but the purpose is implicit.

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