Monica AI Search

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, which the description doesn't contradict. The description adds value by specifying that responses are 'AI-generated' and based on 'web content,' providing context beyond annotations. However, it doesn't detail behavioral traits like rate limits, response format, or potential limitations, so it's adequate but not comprehensive.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads key information ('AI-powered search using Monica AI') and avoids unnecessary details. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose, making it appropriately sized with zero waste.

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 search tool with one parameter, 100% schema coverage, and annotations covering safety (readOnlyHint) and scope (openWorldHint), the description is minimally complete. However, without an output schema, it doesn't explain return values or potential errors, and it lacks sibling differentiation, leaving some contextual gaps.

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%, with the single parameter 'query' fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as query formatting or examples. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 performs 'AI-powered search' and 'returns AI-generated responses based on web content,' which specifies both the verb (search) and resource (web content). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'iask-search' and 'web-search,' which likely offer similar search functionality, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools 'iask-search' and 'web-search.' It lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the tool name and description alone.

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