hb_search_operations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not have to explain safety. It adds real value beyond that: what fields come back (id, method, path, summary, scope, flags, callable-now) and the fact that per-operation flags include credits, health data and destructive markers. It does not discuss result cap behavior or pagination beyond what the schema says.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler. Capability, return shape and the intended call sequence are all front-loaded in that order.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields and the callable-now signal. Combined with a well-described 6-parameter schema and clear annotations, an agent has everything needed to call it and act on the results.

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 83%, so the schema already carries most parameter meaning and a 3 would be the baseline. The description still maps its searchable facets directly onto the parameters (query, toolset, method, scope), reinforcing how each narrows the search, which adds modest value over the schema.

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 ('Search the 189 Hub API v2 operations') plus the exact facets it searches over (text, toolset, method, scope). A reader immediately distinguishes it from hb_describe_operation and hb_call_operation, which the description also 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?

Gives an explicit workflow: 'Start here, then hb_describe_operation, then hb_call_operation,' which tells the agent the correct entry point and ordering. It stops short of exclusions (e.g. when to prefer hb_list_events or hb_search_guides), so it is strong but not fully exhaustive.

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