Deck Hierarchy Search

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It never states that this is a read-only operation, how matching works (substring vs. exact vs. fuzzy, case sensitivity, depth of traversal), or whether results are limited/paginated. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage these are meaningful omissions.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler, and the parameter notes are compact. The example list is slightly repetitive but serves a real illustrative purpose given the undocumented schema.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the two-parameter surface is small. However, matching semantics and the read-only nature of the operation are absent, which are the main things an agent would need to reason about before calling it.

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, and it partly does: it names both parameters, gives concrete query examples ('Catarata', 'Neurologia', 'Glaucoma', 'Esclerose') that illustrate the expected term style, and explains that root_deck is a 'root prefix' restriction with its default. It still omits format details such as whether query matches substrings of deck names or card content.

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 gives a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('subdecks in the 02_MEDICINA_AnkiMBR hierarchy') plus the matching criterion ('keyword or topic'), so an agent knows exactly what the tool returns. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings such as deck_hierarchy_get or deck_hierarchy_add, leaving that differentiation to be inferred from their names.

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?

Usage is implied: use it when you want to locate subdecks by keyword or topic under a root prefix. There is no explicit when-not guidance, no statement of what to do if no match is found, and no named alternative for looking up a single known deck.

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