gold402_search

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

The description adds context about the hand-probed, curated nature of entries and specifies output fields including provenance stamp, going beyond the annotation hints to give users confidence in reliability and result contents.

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 concise, front-loaded with the primary action, and structured in three clear sentences covering purpose, curation, and features. It avoids unnecessary detail.

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?

Given the detailed schema and output schema, the description provides sufficient context for usage without redundant explanations. It covers what the tool returns and the quality of entries, making it complete.

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?

The schema already provides detailed descriptions for each parameter (limit, query, offset, section, response_format). The tool description only paraphrases filtering and pagination, adding minimal extra meaning beyond what the schema covers.

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 clearly identifies the tool's function as searching the curated x402 directory, specifying the types of entries it covers. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_sections and get_entry by focusing on search.

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 for searching and mentions filtering/pagination, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like list_sections. It lacks direct comparative guidance.

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