Argus

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure burden. While it names the Argus broker, it omits critical behavioral context: it doesn't explain what the 'discovery' mode implies, what other modes exist, the purpose of session_id, or whether searches consume quota/rate limits.

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?

Single sentence is front-loaded and wastes no words, earning high marks for efficiency. However, extreme brevity becomes a liability given the parameter complexity and lack of schema descriptions.

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?

Insufficient for a 4-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage. While output schema exists (reducing need to describe returns), the description leaves critical operational parameters (mode, session_id, max_results) unexplained, requiring users to guess their semantics.

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%, requiring the description to compensate for undocumented parameters. It fails to explain the 'mode' options (only knowing 'discovery' is default), the session management behavior, or result format expectations, leaving four parameters effectively undocumented beyond their titles.

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 specific verb (Search) and resource (the web) and identifies the implementation broker (Argus), which provides implementation context. However, it fails to distinguish from sibling search tools (search_budgets, search_health) to guide selection.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this general web search versus specialized siblings (search_budgets, search_health), nor mentions prerequisites like API keys for the Argus broker.

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