Search Layer

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds critical behavioral context: layer=show causes no change, while free/api persist a new default and require authorization. It also discloses the compatibility mapping (legacy api maps to hybrid, not strict api pool), which goes beyond the structured fields.

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 dense but mostly earns its length, with the default behavior and key warning front-loaded. The 'free = free' and 'api = api' phrasing is slightly redundant and could be tightened, but it remains efficient and readable.

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 tool with one optional parameter, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description covers all essential context: default behavior, persistence side effects, authorization requirement, engine_pool mapping, and the alternative tool for single searches. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds meaning beyond the enum descriptions by explaining the engine_pool implications of each value: free maps to engine_pool=free (keyless), api maps to engine_pool=hybrid, and legacy api does not map to the strict api pool. This is valuable semantic nuance that the schema alone does not convey.

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 names a specific resource (the search layer) and a clear action set: inspect with layer=show or persist a new default with free/api. It also explicitly differentiates this tool from fused_search, making its purpose and scope unambiguous.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: use layer=show to inspect, only change the default when authorized, and for a single search use fused_search.engine_pool instead. This routes the agent to the correct sibling in the exact condition that matters.

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