search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context: the tool 'runs in your Kuudo deployment, not here' and returns results 'ranked by relevance.' It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe any side effects/auth requirements, but for a catalog search these are somewhat implicit. The provided context is meaningful but not comprehensive.

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 concise and front-loaded: it opens with the category ('Catalog entry'), gives the execution context, states the primary action, and closes with the result format. No sentence is redundant.

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 simple search tool with all parameters documented by the schema, the description covers the essential context: it runs remotely, searches the tool catalog, and returns relevance-ranked matches. It does not detail the result structure in the absence of an output schema, but 'Returns matching tools' is adequate for a discovery tool.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3 even without parameter details in the description. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides for query, tags, limit, and detail.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Search for available tools by query' and states the output ('Returns matching tools ranked by relevance'). It clearly identifies the tool as a catalog search, but it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings such as get_schema or tags, so it falls short of a 5.

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 the tool ('Search for available tools by query'), which is appropriate for discovery. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like get_schema for retrieving a tool's full schema. Usage context is implied rather than spelled out.

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