search_majors

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one useful trait — that the query runs against a local catalogue with no network request — but says nothing about read-only nature, failure behavior on unmatched keywords, or result scoping; the output schema covers return shape.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no filler, and the local-execution note is front-loaded. Brevity here is efficient rather than padded, though it crosses into under-specification rather than crispness.

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?

The tool is structurally simple (one required parameter, output schema present), so the bar is low and returns need not be explained. Still, the description leaves the core subject matter and the keyword's matching behavior unexplained, which is insufficient even for a simple search.

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% and the single required parameter "keyword" is completely undocumented in both schema and description. The description adds no matching semantics (substring vs exact, case sensitivity, empty-string handling) that an agent would need to call it correctly.

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?

"Search" merely restates the verb already in the name, and the resource is described only as a "local replaceable catalogue subset", which is cryptic jargon. Nothing in the description explains what a "major" is or how this differs from the position-oriented siblings (filter_positions, explain_position).

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus filter_positions or explain_position, despite obvious overlap with a filtering tool. The only hint is "no network request", which implies an offline path but gives no routing rule or prerequisites.

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