search_ecosystem

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

With no annotations, the description discloses that results are 'ranked by relevance' and warns that 'Strata provides intelligence, not ground truth' with a recommendation to verify against source_urls. This is sufficient transparency for a search tool, though it does not mention pagination or rate limits.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by a usage tip and a crucial caveat. Every sentence provides value with no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description is complete: it explains the search domain, how to use the optional parameter, and includes a caveat about verification. No critical information is missing.

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 0%, but the description adds meaning to both parameters: 'query' is implied by the search context, and 'ecosystem' is explicitly explained with the instruction to leave blank for cross-ecosystem search. This compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 'Search across all verified AI ecosystem content' with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools like list_ecosystems and get_latest_news by emphasizing broad search and relevance ranking.

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 a usage hint ('Leave ecosystem blank to search across all ecosystems') but does not explicitly specify when to use this tool over alternatives like find_mcp_servers or get_best_practices. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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