search_drivers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It explains the data source, search behavior, and return intent, which is useful. However, it does not disclose how results are ordered, whether matching is fuzzy/exact, or what happens when no matches are found. For a search tool this is adequate but not rich.

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, dense sentence that front-loads the main action and resource, then efficiently states return value and downstream use. Every clause adds value with no filler or repetition of schema details.

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?

With no output schema, the description must explain return values, and it does state that matching drivers with key T/S params and a `file` are returned. However, it is vague about the result shape (list vs. single object), which T/S params are included, and the role of `limit`. These gaps are noticeable for a 2-parameter 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 50%: `query` is described in the schema, but `limit` has no description and the tool description does not mention it. The description adds only marginal semantics for `query` ('brand/model keywords') and provides no guidance on `limit`, leaving the agent to guess its behavior.

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 action ('Search'), the specific resource ('OpenISD driver library'), and the scope (by brand/model keywords over 1600+ woofers/subs from WinISD .wdr files). It differentiates from siblings by indicating this is the lookup step that returns a `file` to be used as `driverName` elsewhere, distinguishing it from get_driver and simulation 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 gives clear context for when this tool is appropriate: when you need to find drivers by brand/model keywords. It also signals downstream usage by noting the returned `file` is meant to be used as `driverName` elsewhere, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like get_driver.

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