Search journals

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent behavior. The description adds valuable non-obvious behavioral details: case-insensitive matching, searching raw HTML content, returning excerpts per hit, and executing in one request inside Foundry.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: what is searched, what results look like, and how to follow up. The core behavior is front-loaded and no words are wasted.

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 read-only search tool with rich annotations and fully documented parameters, the description covers what is searched, how results are presented, and what to do next. No critical information needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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% and both parameters are described, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by specifying case-insensitivity and that 'content' means the HTML of text pages, which clarifies how searchQuery and searchType behave.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Find journals by a text' with clear scoping to names and HTML text pages, ignoring case. It also distinguishes itself from list-journals by framing list-journals as the follow-up read step rather than the search itself.

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?

Clearly implies when to use it: when you need to locate journal pages by text. It also points to list-journals as the next step with journalId and pageId, giving the agent a usage flow, though it does not explicitly enumerate alternatives like search-compendium.

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