search_functions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the searchable scope (names, signatures, docs, and bodies), which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about case sensitivity, ranking/relevance ordering, pagination, or whether results are truncated.

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?

A single tight sentence with the search scope front-loaded and no filler. Its only weakness is that this brevity is partly achieved by omitting information an agent needs, but as pure structure it is efficient.

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 search tool this covers the core operation, but with no output schema the description should ideally state result shape and how limit truncates, and with no annotations it should note the read-only nature. Adequate but with visible gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate and it does not: neither 'query' nor 'limit' is mentioned. The meaning of limit (1-200 cap on results) and whether query supports syntax beyond plain substrings are left entirely undocumented.

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 names a specific verb and resource (substring search over functions) and even enumerates the searched fields (names, signatures, docs, bodies), which is more than a tautology. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling list_functions or get_function, so the agent must infer the search-vs-list-vs-fetch distinction.

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 byte-level matching semantics ('substring search') implicitly tell the agent this is the lookup tool for partial/unfamiliar names, as opposed to list_functions (enumerate) or get_function (fetch one). But no alternative is named and no when-not condition is given, so the routing is left to inference.

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