search_requirements

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that it returns a list of matching requirements and lists valid filter values, but does not mention behavior such as combining filters (AND vs OR), handling of empty filters, pagination, or ordering. The read-only nature is implied by 'search' but not explicit.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-line summary, a bulleted Args list, and a Returns line. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant information. The layout is easy to scan.

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 read-only search tool with 4 optional parameters, the description covers the purpose and all parameter semantics. It lacks details on edge cases like empty filters or result ordering, but since an output schema exists, return value details are likely covered there. The description is nearly complete for its complexity.

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?

The input schema provides only names and types with zero description coverage. The description compensates by enumerating valid values for status, category, and safety_class, and clarifies that search_text searches title and description. This adds significant semantic meaning beyond the schema.

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 states 'Search and filter requirements' which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from siblings like get_requirement (which likely retrieves a single requirement) by focusing on search and filtering. The Args list further clarifies the scope.

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 implies usage for searching and filtering requirements but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_requirement. There is no 'when-to-use' or 'when-not-to-use' guidance, leaving the context to be inferred from the function name and sibling names.

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