concept_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Search global concept store' implies a read-only operation but doesn't specify whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what happens with empty queries. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 at just three words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Search') and resource ('global concept store'), making it immediately understandable despite its brevity.

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 search tool with three parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what constitutes a 'concept', what format results return, whether searches are fuzzy or exact, or how the allowlist interacts with queries. The minimal description leaves too many contextual questions unanswered.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (q, k, allowlist) with their types and purposes. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score of 3 for adequate but not enhanced parameter documentation.

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 'Search global concept store' clearly indicates a search operation on a concept repository, which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'concept_get' or 'memory_search', leaving ambiguity about what makes this search unique within the toolset.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple search-related siblings (concept_get, memory_search) and other concept tools (concept_allowlist, concept_save), there's no indication of appropriate contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions for this specific search operation.

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