search_within_results

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It states it returns 'filtered and re-ranked results' but does not disclose side effects (e.g., read-only), auth needs, or rate limits. For a refinement tool, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no wasted words. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is clear and efficient.

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?

No output schema is provided, so the description should hint at return format; it says 'filtered and re-ranked results' but lacks specifics on structure, pagination, or edge cases. Given the tool's simplicity, it is somewhat complete but could be improved.

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 the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds context about using 'full result objects' for previous_results, but this is implied by the schema description. No extra meaning is added, yielding baseline score 3.

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 refines previous search results with an additional query, provides a concrete example (VIC-II, sprite collision), and explicitly mentions 'progressive search refinement', distinguishing it from initial search 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 explicitly outlines the progressive refinement workflow: 'first search broadly, then refine.' It implies when to use (after a broad search) but does not name alternative tools or when not to use, though the sibling list includes many search variants.

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