search_tools

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the search returns matching tool definitions, ranked by relevance, and formatted identically to list_tools. This goes beyond the obvious by specifying the ranking behavior and return format. While it doesn't explicitly state it's a read-only operation or discuss errors, those are implied for a search function and the description provides sufficient transparency for a non-mutating tool.

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 exactly two concise sentences, front-loaded with the purpose. It includes the essential details (natural language search, relevance ranking, format) without any fluff or repetition. Every sentence earns its place, making it highly efficient.

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 an output schema present (which presumably defines the return format), the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, how results are ordered, and that the format matches list_tools. There are no complex edge cases or prerequisites to document, so no meaningful context 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?

The schema already describes the only parameter, query, as 'Natural language query to search for tools' (100% coverage). The description repeats 'natural language' without adding any new meaning about query syntax, examples, or constraints. Baseline 3 applies because schema coverage is high and the description adds no additional parameter semantic value.

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 'Search for tools using natural language,' which identifies the specific verb (search) and resource (tools). It distinguishes from siblings like call_tool, list_resources, and read_resource by focusing on searching rather than executing or accessing. The addition of 'ranked by relevance' and 'in the same format as list_tools' further clarifies its unique function.

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 implies when to use this tool: when you need to find tools via natural language rather than listing all tools. It references list_tools for format, indirectly contrasting with a full list. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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