rea_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the important behavioral trait that results are summary-level only ("no full schemas"), which prevents an agent from assuming it can invoke directly from search output. However, it says nothing about result ordering, truncation, or what happens when nothing matches.

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?

Three short sentences, each doing distinct work: what it searches, what it returns (and notably what it does not), and where to go next. Purpose is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain returns, and it does so concisely. Combined with full schema coverage on the three parameters and the stated follow-up path, an agent has what it needs to call this correctly; only empty-result behavior is unaddressed.

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%: query, limit (1-10, default 5) and the six-value domain enum are all documented in the schema itself. The description adds no extra meaning about query syntax or domain semantics beyond the schema's own examples, so baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ("Search REA capabilities by keyword") and immediately defines the return shape: tool names plus one-line descriptions, explicitly without full schemas. That return-shape clause separates it cleanly from rea_describe and rea_call without the agent needing to open any schema.

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?

"Call rea_describe for one tool, then rea_call to run it" makes this the entry point of an explicit discovery chain and names both alternatives. It stops short of stating a negative condition (e.g., skip this if you already know the exact tool name), which keeps it from a 5.

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