search_names

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds meaningful context: the registry is 'static' and returns '.algo names'. The word 'Search' implies a read-only operation, though read-only is not explicitly stated. It stops short of mentioning edge cases like empty results or case sensitivity.

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, front-loaded sentence: 'Search the static Algorand name registry by pattern.' It conveys the essential purpose without any wasted words, and the second sentence clarifies the return value.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one param, no output schema), the description is adequately complete. It states what it does and what it returns. It could mention empty-result behavior or ordering, but for a basic pattern search with a well-documented parameter, it covers the essential context.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully describes the 'pattern' parameter. The description merely echoes 'by pattern' and adds no new detail about the parameter format beyond the schema's 'substring match' explanation.

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 the action ('Search'), the resource ('static Algorand name registry'), and the specific scope ('by pattern'). It further clarifies the return value ('Returns matching .algo names'), distinguishing it from exact resolution tools like resolve_name and reverse_resolve_address.

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 phrase 'by pattern' implies usage when a partial name is known, but there is no explicit guidance on when not to use the tool or comparison with alternatives. No exclusions are stated, but the lack of direct reference to sibling resolution tools leaves the usage context only implied.

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