search_scenarios

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 search scope and that it returns matching scenarios, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it mention result limits, pagination, or ordering. These are meaningful gaps for a search tool without annotation support.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core operation and then specifies searchable fields and return type. There is no redundant or filler content.

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 tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the main essentials: what is searched and what is returned. Some detail about the returned scenario shape or result handling would make it fully complete, but it is adequate for straightforward invocation.

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?

The schema only describes 'query' as 'Search terms,' but the description adds significant meaning by specifying exactly which text is searched: feature names, scenario names, step text, and tags. This extra context helps the agent formulate effective queries and goes beyond the schema's minimal description.

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 a full-text search operation with a specific resource (scenarios) and enumerates the fields searched: feature name, scenario name, step text, and tags. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_steps and get_scenario without needing to inspect schemas.

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 when to use it: when a free-text search across scenario content is needed. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives such as search_steps, so the routing to the correct sibling is left mostly to inference.

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