Search the ChurchTools API

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description is consistent with that, adding real context beyond the annotations: it returns operation metadata, not live API results, and must be chained through ct_get_operation before ct_api_request. It does not describe the result shape or ordering, so it is not fully self-contained.

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?

Two tight sentences with no waste: the first states purpose and search scope, the second routes the agent to the correct follow-up tools. Nothing is buried or repeated.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description conveys that the return is a set of API operations and that it is an entry point in a three-step workflow, which is what an agent needs. It stops short of noting anything about result ordering or ranking, a minor gap for a search tool.

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 100% (baseline 3), and the description adds genuine meaning by enumerating the searchable fields (method, path, summary, tags) rather than just repeating the schema's 'Keywords, e.g. group members'. The limit parameter is left entirely to the schema, which already documents the 1-100 range.

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 (Finds) and resource (operations of the ChurchTools REST API) and specifies exactly which fields the keyword search spans: method, path, summary and tags. This clearly distinguishes it from the entity-specific search siblings like ct_search_persons and ct_search_groups, whose scope is data records rather than API operations.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent when to use it ('anything no other tool covers') and then names the follow-up workflow: ct_get_operation for parameters and ct_api_request to call it. The fallback framing implicitly excludes cases where a dedicated sibling tool already applies.

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