feature_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that matching entries appear 'near the top', implying ranking, but does not specify search algorithm (e.g., fuzzy vs exact), result format, or whether it requires authentication. Adequate but not detailed.

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, well-structured paragraph that front-loads the scope of search and immediately follows with concrete examples. Every sentence is informative with no redundancy.

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 search tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what is searched and gives sample queries. It could mention that results are ordered by relevance or how the limit parameter affects pagination, but overall it provides sufficient context.

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%, both parameters already have descriptions. The description adds value by providing realistic example queries for the 'query' parameter, helping agents understand the range of inputs. No extra detail for 'limit' beyond schema.

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 it is a free-text search across many specific catalogs (marketing features, plans, integrations, etc.) and provides multiple example queries, making its purpose distinct from sibling list or analysis tools.

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 this tool should be used for broad, semantic queries (e.g., 'vs Xero', 'GSTR-3B due') rather than exact list lookups. It does not explicitly exclude cases, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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