search_keywords

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It explains key behaviors: listing all when queries omitted, hierarchical tree structure, and the meaning of 'full_name'. It does not mention pagination limits or read-only nature explicitly, but those are implied and partially covered by schema.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the main action. Every sentence is informative: purpose, structure/path, and use case. No redundant words or filler.

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?

For a two-parameter tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description fully covers the operational context: what it does, when to use it, and the tree semantics. No gaps for an AI agent to invoke correctly.

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 100% with both parameters described. The description adds value by illustrating the tree structure and how 'full_name' reflects the path, which is not in the schema. It also reinforces the 'queries' null behavior by restating that omitting queries lists all, though schema already says this.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Look up keywords (tags) by name, or list them all.' It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like create_keyword and other search tools by focusing on read/lookup behavior. The tree/path explanation adds precise scope.

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?

Provides clear context: use without queries to list existing tags and align vocabulary. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or mention alternatives like search_foods/search_units, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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