search_names

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. It indicates a read-only 'static' search, which implies no side effects, but it does not explicitly state safety, auth requirements, or return behavior. The term 'search' provides some transparency, but it lacks explicit disclosure of operation side effects or limitations.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource, with a clear conditional for alternatives. No wasted words.

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 search tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it defines the input intent and distinguishes from live search. However, it does not mention what the search returns (e.g., matched names) or behavior like case sensitivity or result ordering, which is mild but not critical given the simplicity.

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% (both 'pattern' and 'limit' have descriptions). The description adds no additional semantic detail beyond the schema; 'substring match' is already in the schema. Thus the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Search') and the resource ('the static envoi name registry'), with a specific method ('by pattern'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings by emphasizing 'static' and differentiating from live search via UluCoreMCP's envoi tools.

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 explicitly says to use UluCoreMCP's envoi tools for live search, providing an alternative. However, it does not explicitly discuss when to use this tool over sibling tools like resolve_name or search_assets, though 'by pattern' and 'static' imply usage for offline, pattern-based lookups.

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