Search Tools

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

The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it specifies that results are ranked, include full schemas, save ~95% context tokens, and support multi-word queries and synonym expansion. Annotations cover read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent traits, but the description enriches this with performance and functionality details without contradiction.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and key benefits in two concise sentences. Every sentence earns its place by adding specific value: the first states the action and efficiency gain, the second details query support. No wasted words or 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?

Given the tool's complexity (search functionality with ranking and schema retrieval), rich annotations (read-only, idempotent, etc.), and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete enough. It covers purpose, usage, behavioral traits, and efficiency benefits, leaving output details to the schema.

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 fully documents the 'limit' and 'query' parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as details on query syntax or result ranking, but it does imply the 'query' parameter supports multi-word and synonyms, which slightly enhances understanding.

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 the specific verb ('Search') and resource ('tools'), and distinguishes from siblings like 'gateway_list_tools' by emphasizing keyword-based search with ranking and schema retrieval. It explicitly mentions the efficiency benefit of saving context tokens versus loading all definitions.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: for searching tools by keyword with ranked results and full schemas, and when not to use it (implied by contrasting with 'gateway_list_tools' for listing all tools without search). It also mentions the benefit of saving context tokens, guiding usage based on efficiency needs.

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