search_names

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the tool searches a 'static' registry by 'pattern' with 'substring match,' which adds useful behavioral context beyond the schema. However, it doesn't cover aspects like rate limits, error conditions, or what happens with no matches, leaving some gaps in behavioral disclosure.

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 two sentences with zero waste: the first states the purpose and scope, the second provides explicit usage guidance. It's front-loaded and every sentence earns its place by adding critical context.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, and some behavioral context. However, without annotations or output schema, it could benefit from more details on return values or error handling, slightly limiting completeness.

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 schema already documents the 'pattern' parameter fully. The description adds marginal value by implying the pattern is for 'substring match against registered names,' but this is essentially restating the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('Search') and resource ('static enVoi name registry'), and distinguishes it from alternatives by mentioning 'For live search, use UluCoreMCP's envoi tools.' This provides explicit differentiation from sibling tools like 'resolve_name' or 'reverse_resolve_address' by specifying it's for static registry pattern matching.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('Search the static enVoi name registry by pattern') and when not to use it ('For live search, use UluCoreMCP's envoi tools'), providing clear alternatives and context. This helps the agent choose between this static search and other dynamic resolution tools.

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