Search Layer

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

The annotations already indicate this is not read-only and not destructive; the description adds meaningful context by explaining what switching to 'free' vs 'api' changes about the underlying engine composition. It does not detail side effects or persistence, but for a simple configuration switch, the disclosed behavior is sufficient. No contradiction with annotations.

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 extremely compact, with the core action front-loaded in the first sentence and the mode meanings packed into the second. Every clause adds value, and there is no redundant repetition of the title or schema.

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 one-parameter optional configuration tool with no output schema, the description covers the main decision space well. The only notable gap is 'show' behavior not being described in the mode definitions, but the overall tool is simple enough that this does not severely compromise completeness.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It successfully explains two of the three enum values ('free' and 'api') with concrete engine lists. The 'show' value is only implied by the opening verb and lacks explicit detail about what it displays or returns.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource combination, 'Switch or show search layer,' which clearly identifies the action and target. It also distinguishes this tool from the sibling search tools by focusing on layer configuration rather than executing searches, and the mode definitions reinforce the purpose.

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 gives clear context for when to choose each layer value: 'free' for keyless engines only, 'api' for adding keyed engines, and 'show' to inspect the current layer. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or name alternatives, but the mode explanations provide practical selection guidance.

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