Search settings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is known. The description adds valuable behavioral details: it searches across specific fields (key, label, tooltip), returns a compact structure (key, label, category, short tooltip), and ranks results with key/label matches first. The 'Offline' note is an additional behavioral trait not present in annotations. This goes beyond what structured fields provide.

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, each earning its place. The first sentence states the action and scope, the second describes the result format and ranking plus an offline note. No fluff, and the key information is front-loaded. This is an example of concise, well-structured documentation.

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?

For a simple search tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, return shape, and an operational detail (offline). It doesn't specify pagination or behavior on no matches, but these are not critical for a search tool of this simplicity. With annotations covering read-only safety, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to use it effectively.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'query' parameter by stating the search is 'by keyword' and enumerates the fields searched (key/label/tooltip), adding meaning. However, it does not mention the 'limit' parameter or its default behavior (25), leaving part of the semantics undocumented. The description partially compensates but not fully for both parameters.

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 specifies 'Search settings by keyword across key/label/tooltip', naming the exact verb, resource, and scope. This immediately distinguishes it as a search tool over settings, and the return format ('compact matches... ranked key/label first') further clarifies its role. It stands apart from sibling tools like 'get_config' or 'find_config_keys' by stating its unique behavior.

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 gives clear context: use when you need to find settings by keyword, and what results look like (compact matches, ranked by key/label). It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the purpose is so well-defined that an agent can infer appropriate usage. No exclusions are mentioned, but the context is sufficiently clear for selection.

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