search_procedures

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, but the description frames this purely as a 'search', giving no hint that results can be persisted (the analysis_project_id parameter's retention behavior is the likely reason for readOnlyHint=false). It also says nothing about result shape, ordering, or whether the search is scoped to an open binary session.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of the coverage gaps noted elsewhere rather than being genuinely complete.

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?

With five parameters at 20% schema coverage, no output schema, and a non-read-only annotation that is never explained, the description leaves too much unstated. An agent cannot tell what the results contain or what the document and analysis_project_id parameters do.

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 only 20%, and the description only implicitly covers the mode enum ('literal substring or regular expression'). The document scoping parameter, case_sensitive, and the analysis_project_id retention semantics get no explanation in the description, leaving most of the five parameters 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?

States a specific verb (search) and a specific resource (ELF function names), plus the two matching mechanisms (literal substring or regex). It is distinguishable from list_procedures (enumerate all) and search_strings (different resource), though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this over list_procedures or search_strings, nor on when each mode is appropriate beyond the phrase itself. The agent must infer that this is the tool for known-name lookups and that list_procedures is for enumeration.

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