search

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

Annotations indicate readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds behavioral details: searches in thesis and metadata by default, returns list with specific fields, and mentions the system source. No contradictions with annotations.

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 (two sentences) with clear structure. Every sentence provides essential information: what it does, default behavior, and next step for full text. No unnecessary words.

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?

No output schema, but the description explains return fields (signature, organ, date, thesis). It covers the main functionality and links to sibling tools. Pagination parameters are not elaborated, but schema descriptions cover them. Overall complete for a search tool.

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?

All 7 parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining default behaviors (searchInContent, fullPhrase) and brief usage context, elevating the score.

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 states the tool searches Polish individual interpretations in the EUREKA system, specifies the content type (tax topics), and differentiates itself from sibling tools by mentioning get_interpretation for full text and other search types like search_by_signature and suggest.

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 provides guidance on default search scope (thesis and metadata) and when to use searchInContent=true for full text. It also references get_interpretation for retrieving full content. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or provide exhaustive alternatives.

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