keiro_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns 'titles, URLs, and content snippets' and that results are optimized for AI, which is useful. However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, if any rate limits apply, or how query complexity might affect results. The absence of any caveats or behavioral constraints keeps this at a 3.

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, focused sentence that conveys the core purpose and output without any filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple one-parameter tool.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers the main purpose and return format. It gets a 4 because it loses one point for not clarifying how this is distinct from sibling tools, which is relevant context for an agent choosing between them.

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%, so the single parameter 'query' is already documented as 'The search query.' The description adds no new meaning beyond that, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema fully covers the parameter semantics.

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 tool's action: 'Search the web using KEIRO's semantic search engine.' It specifies the resource (web) and the method (semantic search), and mentions the output (titles, URLs, snippets). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like keiro_search_pro or keiro_research, so it earns a 4 rather than 5.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus the more specialized siblings (pro, research, answer, crawl). The only implied usage is that results are 'optimized for AI consumption,' but there is no explicit statement of preferred scenarios, limitations, or exclusions.

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