search_members

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full load and does disclose two meaningful traits: no network access is required, and result usefulness is bounded by what has already been cached via get_type. This completeness caveat is exactly the kind of behavior a search-over-cache tool needs surfaced. It still omits anything about result shape or ordering.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scoped immediately after. Every sentence contributes something (scope, performance, cache dependency), though it is slightly more clipped than it needs to be given the missing result-format detail.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description is the only source of behavioral context. It covers invocation conditions and cache dependency but says nothing about what a result looks like or how hits are ranked, which is a real gap for a keyword search tool with four parameters.

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 query, kind, limit, and namespace are already documented in the schema, including the default/maximum for limit and an example namespace. The description adds no syntax, matching behavior, or keyword-scope detail beyond what the schema states, so the baseline 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 gives a specific verb (search) and resource (members), and enumerates what counts as a member (properties, methods, fields, events, constructors). It also scopes the search to 'all types that have already been loaded,' which separates it from get_type. It never explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling get_member, so the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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?

It states the operative condition clearly: the tool is fast, needs no network, and improves as more types are pulled in via get_type — effectively telling the agent to populate the cache first. It stops short of naming a when-not case or pointing to get_member for exact-name lookups.

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