midnight-search-typescript

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the animal agent knows this is a safe, idempotent operation. The description adds minor behavioral context (call limits, query refinement) but does not disclose further behavioral traits beyond what annotations imply. With annotations present, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 brief and well-structured, with a clear opening statement followed by a 'USAGE GUIDANCE' section with bullet points. Every sentence adds value, and there is no fluff or repetition. Very concise for the information provided.

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 4 parameters, good annotations, and an output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage limits, alternatives, and query tips. Nothing essential is missing, and the output schema handles return value documentation.

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 coverage is 100%: all parameters (query, includeTypes, includeExamples, limit) have descriptions in the schema. The description adds a small amount of extra guidance for the query parameter (suggesting adding 'type' or 'interface'), but overall does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is correct.

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: 'Search TypeScript SDK code, types, and API implementations.' It also explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool midnight-search-compact by noting 'For contract code, use midnight-search-compact instead.' This makes the purpose specific and well-differentiated.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Call at most 2 times per question - refine keywords rather than repeating' and 'For contract code, use midnight-search-compact instead.' It also advises including 'type' or 'interface' in queries for type definitions. This clearly tells the agent when to use this tool and when to use alternatives.

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