search_varbittypes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action without mentioning important behaviors like whether this is a read-only operation, what format results are returned in, error conditions, or any performance characteristics. For a search tool with pagination parameters, this is inadequate behavioral context.

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 a single, efficient sentence that clearly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a search tool and front-loads the essential information about what the tool does.

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 search tool with pagination parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what format results are returned in, what fields are included, or how to interpret search results. With no annotations and multiple similar sibling tools, more context is needed to help an agent use this tool effectively.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents all three parameters (query, page, pageSize). The description mentions searching 'for variable bits' which adds some domain context about what 'query' should contain, but doesn't provide additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already specifies. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Search') and target resource ('varbittypes.txt file for variable bits'), providing a specific purpose. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_varptypes' or 'search_data_file', which appear to search similar data files, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this specific tool.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling search tools (e.g., search_varptypes, search_data_file, search_iftypes), there's no indication of what makes this tool unique or when it should be preferred over others, leaving the agent to guess based on naming alone.

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