IAsk AI Search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, indicating a safe read operation with limited scope. The description adds useful context about AI-powered responses and different search modes/detail levels, but doesn't disclose rate limits, authentication needs, or specific behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide.

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 appropriately sized (3 sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: first states what it does, second explains capabilities, third provides usage context. Could be slightly more concise but overall well-structured.

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 search tool with good annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint) and comprehensive schema coverage, the description provides adequate context about purpose and capabilities. However, without an output schema, it doesn't describe the response format or structure, leaving a gap in understanding what the tool returns.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already fully documents all 3 parameters with descriptions, enums, defaults, and requirements. The description mentions search modes and detail levels but doesn't add meaningful semantic context beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('AI-powered search', 'Retrieves comprehensive, AI-generated responses') and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying it uses IAsk.ai for web content. It explicitly mentions what makes it different from general search 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 description provides clear context about when to use this tool ('Ideal for getting well-researched answers to complex questions') and mentions different search modes and detail levels. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools (monica-search, web-search) or specify when NOT to use it.

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