search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the query cannot be empty, will be converted to string and trimmed, and that the result is a dictionary with a 'results' list containing id, title, and url for citation. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or mention any rate limits or auth requirements, but for a search tool this is a minor omission.

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 front-loaded with purpose, then organized into searchable categories, an Args section, and a Returns section. It is appropriately sized and every part contributes useful information for invoking the tool.

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 one-parameter search tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter semantics, and return format. The main gap is the lack of explicit routing guidance among numerous siblings, which could lead an agent to choose a specialized tool over this general search without clear criteria.

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 fully describes the single query parameter: natural language, non-empty, converted to string and trimmed, with three examples. This adds substantial meaning beyond the schema's bare string type.

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 states a clear verb ('Search') and resource ('fantasy football information'), and lists covered categories (players, teams, league data). It does not, however, distinguish this general search from more specific siblings like search_players_by_name or get_trending_players, so sibling differentiation is absent.

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 implies usage through its list of searchable categories and the note that it is required for ChatGPT compatibility, but it gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to the many specialized sibling tools. An agent must infer that this is the broad fallback search.

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