search_entries

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

With no annotations, the description details search behavior: fields searched, ranking logic, and type restriction. However, it does not explicitly state that it is read-only or mention any potential side effects, which would be expected for a search tool.

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 with five sentences, front-loading the core action and efficiently providing key details without redundancy.

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?

Covers input behavior, ranking, and type restriction adequately. With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values. However, it omits potential details like pagination or ordering beyond ranking, which are minor gaps.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It describes 'query' as an exact keyword or partial name and mentions optional type restriction, but lacks specifics on 'type' values or query format details (e.g., case sensitivity). Adds meaning but could be more comprehensive.

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 searches registry entries by exact or partial name, matching against name, description, and plugin name, with ranking and optional type restriction. It distinguishes itself from the 'suggest_entries' sibling, making purpose unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (specific keyword or partial name) and when not to (natural language tasks, suggesting 'suggest_entries' instead), providing clear guidance with examples.

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