search_smugmug_docs

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 states the action ('Search'), which implies a read-only operation, but does not disclose what the output looks like, whether it searches full text or just metadata, or any limits. For a simple search tool this is acceptable, but it leaves some behavioral details implicit.

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 that clearly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It earns its place by being concise and immediately informative.

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 parameter, no output schema), the description is reasonably complete. However, it does not specify what the search returns (e.g., a list of document ID's, snippets), which could be important for an agent deciding how to proceed. The absence of any return-value guidance leaves a minor gap.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for the single parameter 'query', providing examples like 'album, image, auth, or user'. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Search') and identifies the resource ('the bundled SmugMug API documentation catalog'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like fetch_smugmug_doc, which likely retrieves a specific document, and smugmug_api_call, which makes API calls. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 clearly implies the tool is for searching documentation, which provides context for when to use it (when the agent needs to locate docs). However, it does not explicitly mention when to avoid it or prefer an alternative like fetch_smugmug_doc. The sibling names offer hints, but the description itself lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives.

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