search_tools

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds useful context by stating the database scale and returned fields, implying a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly confirm absence of side effects, auth requirements, or rate limits. For a search tool this is a mild gap, not a serious one.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: the first identifies the action and scope, the second lists output fields. It is front-loaded with the verb and every sentence earns its place.

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?

With a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's function and return fields. It could be slightly richer by noting that all parameters are optional or mentioning default sort behavior, but those are already implied by the schema, so the definition is complete enough for correct invocation.

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 documents all 5 parameters with 100% coverage, including enum values, min/max, and examples. The description adds no parameter-level detail, which is acceptable because the schema does the heavy lifting; 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource — 'Search and filter software tools from Toolradar's database' — and lists return fields, making the purpose clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like recommend_tools or compare_tools, but the search/filter framing is distinct enough for basic disambiguation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as recommend_tools, get_tool, or compare_tools. The description only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer the intended use case from the name and sibling list.

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