Search Tools

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context about what is searched (tool catalog) and the supported match types, but it does not disclose output verbosity, pagination, or whether domain_tags can also be passed through query; this is consistent with the 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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and object, zero filler. Every word contributes to the agent's understanding of what the tool searches and how.

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 annotations covering safety and an output schema present, the description does not need to explain return values. Still, it is minimal: it does not clarify the relationship between query and domain_tags, nor the meaning of mode beyond its default. It is adequate for a simple search tool but leaves some invocation nuances implicit.

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. It does add real meaning by explaining that search can match aliases and domain tags in addition to keywords, which clarifies the query parameter's behavior. However, it leaves mode and limit undcribed; their defaults mitigate the gap but do not fully document valid options.

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 states a specific verb ('Search') and a precise resource ('this server's tool catalog'), plus the three matching dimensions: keyword, alias, and domain tag. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling data-search tools like mail_search_messages, files_search_files, and contacts_search_contacts.

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 implies a clear use case: discovering tools in the server-side catalog by keyword, alias, or domain. However, it never explicitly states when not to use it or points to an alternative such as get_tool_info for exact tool metadata lookups, so routing between siblings remains partially inferred.

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