search_standards

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the behavioral transparency burden. It does not mention whether the search is read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or any side effects. It only describes the domain and content, not the behavior.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource. It uses specific, relevant examples without unnecessary filler.

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 low-complexity search tool with an output schema, the description provides sufficient context about what is searched and for what domain. However, it lacks explicit alternative usage and behavioral details, which is a minor gap.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage for parameters, and the description does not explain 'query' or 'limit'. While the parameter names are relatively self-explanatory, the description adds no semantic detail about expected query format or limit behavior.

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 technical standards and specifications' followed by concrete examples like IETF RFCs and Internet-Drafts. It differentiates from siblings such as search_papers and search_code by specifying the standards domain and networking protocols (TCP, HTTP, DNS, TLS, QUIC).

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: 'The primary source for networking and internet systems specs.' This indicates it is the go-to tool for networking standards but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools. It falls short of fully explicit guidance.

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