optimai_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing key behaviors: it 'waits briefly for results,' returns a 'structured answer with citations when ready,' and returns the search ID if the search is still running. This goes beyond a simple statement of action and gives the agent important expectations about response patterns.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, then behavioral detail, then usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or padding.

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?

The tool has moderate complexity and no output schema, so the description must explain return values—and it does, covering both the ready-result case (structured answer with citations) and the async case (search ID). It also references the logical follow-up tool. It could be even more explicit about error conditions or the exact shape of citations, but the core is covered.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters with meaningful descriptions. The tool description adds minimal extra meaning about parameters themselves; it only frames the query as Web3-focused. This meets the baseline for schema-heavy coverage but doesn't go further.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Run a Web3-focused AI search on the OptimAI decentralised network.' It clearly differentiates from siblings by explaining its wait-and-return behavior and how it relates to optimai_get_search, making the tool's unique role obvious.

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 usage context: 'Use this when the user wants up-to-date information about crypto, DeFi, NFTs, blockchain projects, or any on-chain topic.' It also implicitly contrasts with optimai_get_search by noting that if the search is still running, it returns the search ID for later fetching. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or mention alternatives like optimai_start_search.

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