Search Investigations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. 'Search' implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, and an output schema covers the response shape, but nothing is said about result ordering, pagination behavior beyond the limit param, or data source freshness.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then a definition, an example, and use cases. Four short lines, each earning its place, though the full URN example is slightly more verbose than needed for selection.

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 simple two-parameter search tool with a full output schema and 100% schema coverage, the description covers purpose, definition, and usage contexts adequately. The main remaining gap is explicit routing against the five sibling search tools.

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 both parameters (limit, keywords) are already documented with defaults and a keyword syntax example. The description adds no further parameter-level detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search PDS Context products that are Investigations'), then defines what an Investigation is (missions/projects) with a concrete URN example. This makes the resource distinguishable in practice from search_targets/search_instruments, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it: 'queries about space missions, mission timelines, or finding missions that studied specific targets.' Clear positive context, but no exclusions or named alternatives to disambiguate from the other search_* tools.

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