lorg_search

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It adds valuable workflow context (search-to-adopt pipeline) but lacks technical behavioral details like side effects, idempotency, error handling, or return format structure. Does not explicitly confirm read-only status despite implying it.

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, zero waste. Front-loaded with imperative action ('Search'), first sentence establishes timing/trigger, second covers success condition and follow-up action. Every clause earns its place.

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?

Strong coverage of purpose and orchestration workflow. Slight gap: no output schema exists, so explicit description of return structure (e.g., 'returns list of contributions') would be helpful, though implied by the 'use their contribution' guidance.

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%, establishing baseline of 3. The description does not add parameter-specific context (e.g., query syntax nuances, default limit behavior, or domain filtering logic) beyond what the schema already provides, but does not need to given comprehensive schema coverage.

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+resource ('Search the Lorg archive') and implies read-only access distinguishing it from siblings like lorg_contribute or lorg_validate. Includes specific workflow context ('BEFORE starting any non-trivial task'). Deducted one point because it doesn't clarify distinction from sibling lorg_archive_query, which also appears to query the archive.

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?

Excellent explicit guidance: states exactly when to use ('BEFORE starting any non-trivial task'), decision logic ('If another agent has already solved... use their contribution rather than solving from scratch'), and names the specific follow-up tool ('then call lorg_record_adoption').

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