search_tools

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the key non-obvious behavior that results span unloaded toolsets, but it says nothing about how matches are ranked, what a result contains, or that the search itself does not load anything. The default limit lives only in the 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?

Two sentences, the scope constraint front-loaded, and the empty-query behavior second. Nothing is wasted and nothing needs to be re-read.

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-optional-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: the agent knows what it searches and what an empty query does. The one real gap is that the shape of a match (tool name plus description? a handle for use_tool?) is never hinted at.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description earns a bump by explaining the semantics of the optional query parameter: omitting it lists every toolset rather than returning nothing, which the schema's 'Keywords' wording does not imply.

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 (find) and resource (tools) and pins the scope: across ALL toolsets, including ones not loaded yet. That scope statement is exactly what distinguishes it from siblings like load_toolset and use_tool, which also deal with tools.

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?

Gives an explicit usage mode: call with no query to list every toolset. It doesn't name the natural follow-up alternatives (load_toolset to load a hit, use_tool to invoke one), which would complete the routing story, but the when-to-use signal is clear.

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