keiro_search_pro

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 the tool returns enhanced results, metadata, related queries, and deeper content extraction, which gives a sense of behavior. However, it does not clarify what 'deeper content extraction' entails, whether results are structured, or any operational characteristics like speed or rate limits.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose ('Advanced search') and followed by concrete feature bullets. Every clause adds value: the first sentence enumerates capabilities, the second states the ideal use case. No redundancy or filler.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains the tool's purpose, capabilities (including what kinds of data it returns), and when to use it. It does not detail output structure, but that may be acceptable given the simplicity and the partial behavioral disclosure.

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 has 100% description coverage for the 'query' parameter with a simple description. The tool description adds context that the search is advanced and comprehensive but gives no additional specifics about the query parameter beyond what the schema already states. This aligns with the baseline 3 for high schema coverage.

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 identifies this as an advanced search tool with a specific verb ('search') and resource (comprehensive information gathering). It lists distinguishing capabilities (enhanced results, metadata, related queries, deeper content extraction) that set it apart from basic search, though it does not explicitly name sibling 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 phrase 'Best for comprehensive information gathering' provides clear context for when to use this tool, implying a preference for in-depth research over quick lookups. However, it lacks explicit exclusions or references to alternatives like keiro_answer or keiro_search, so it does not fully meet the 5-level benchmark.

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