search_tools

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that results are 'matching tool definitions ranked by relevance' and that the format matches 'list_tools', which are behavioral details. However, it does not mention potential limitations or side effects, but for a read-only search tool this is sufficient.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and no wasted words. The cross-reference to list_tools is efficient and 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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and has an output schema. The description adequately covers purpose, return format, and ranking, making it complete for the tool's complexity.

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% with a single parameter 'query' that has a description. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Search for tools using natural language' with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like recomendar_tools and call_tool by focusing on search. It also clarifies the output is 'matching tool definitions', reinforcing the purpose.

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 implies the tool is used for searching tools via natural language, and the phrase 'ranked by relevance' gives context on expected results. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or say 'use this when', but the context is clear enough for a search tool.

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