search_best_practice

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says to apply recommended patterns from the repo, without describing whether this is a read-only search, what output format is returned, whether results are ranked, or what happens when no matches are found.

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 compact, front-loaded with the WHEN condition before HOW, and contains no filler or repetition. Every phrase contributes either a usage trigger or an implementation step.

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 tool with no output schema, the description should explain what the search returns or how results should be consumed, but it only gives workflow guidance. An agent can determine when to invoke it, but not what to expect back or how to interpret the response.

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 only 50%, and the tool description adds no meaning for query or limit. The reference to 'structure, performance, or idiomatic UdonSharp' hints at what query topics may be useful, but it does not explain query syntax, result count behavior, or the limit parameter's role.

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 ties the tool to refining structure, performance, and idiomatic UdonSharp, which conveys a specific search purpose beyond the bare name. It does not explicitly state what the tool 'searches' or what resource it queries, so it stops short of fully distinguishing itself from siblings like search_reference or search_antipattern.

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 WHEN clause gives concrete triggering conditions: refining structure, performance, or idiomatic UdonSharp. The HOW clause adds workflow context by saying it applies patterns after drafting from a template, but it does not name alternatives or state when not to use the tool.

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