Search Tools

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds the return shape (names, summaries) and a non-obvious quirk that the access field is omitted for read operations. It says nothing about result volume or pagination despite a limit parameter, which keeps it from a 5.

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 short sentences with the core action first, then query forms, then return shape and next step. No filler; the parenthetical about access is dense but earns its space.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully sketches what comes back and what to do next, which is enough for a simple three-parameter lookup. The gap is the undocumented limit parameter and any indication of default/max result count.

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 coverage is 67%, and the description's explanation of query ('plain words or resource path') largely restates the schema's own parameter description. The limit parameter has no schema description and is not addressed at all, and the access filter is left to the enum definition.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Find Gcore API operations') and immediately positions the tool relative to a sibling by naming the follow-up ('Next: get_tool_schema'). An agent can tell this is the discovery step, not the execution step, without opening any schema.

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?

Gives concrete query strategies with examples ('list instances', 'delete dns record') and by resource path ('cloud.volumes'), plus the explicit next action. It does not state when NOT to use it or how it relates to call_read_tool/call_write_tool, so the routing is clear but not exhaustive.

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