search_hub

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context about results including 'linked arXiv ids when available,' which is a behavioral trait beyond the basic search action. However, it does not mention other behaviors like sorting, pagination, or that it is a read-only operation, though 'Search' implicitly suggests read-only.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. The second sentence adds a valuable detail about arXiv ids without extra fluff. Every word earns its place, and it is appropriately concise.

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 simplicity, the description covers the core behavior and scope. An output schema exists, so return values are already documented. The description explains the 'kind' parameter and the arXiv linking behavior, which are the non-obvious aspects. No significant gaps remain for a straightforward search tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'kind' parameter with valid values ('models' or 'datasets'), adding meaning beyond the schema. The 'query' and 'limit' parameters are left implicit, but their purposes are reasonably obvious from their names and types, so the compensation is partial.

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 tool's function: 'Search the Hugging Face Hub for models or datasets.' This uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools like search_papers and search_code by focusing on models/datasets. It also adds a unique detail about linking arXiv ids.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: 'for models or datasets,' and explains the 'kind' parameter to select one or the other. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives or mention sibling tools, but the scope is clearly implied, giving no confusion about its intended use.

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