Search operators

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds valuable behavioral details: offline operation, relevance ranking, return format (name, family, one-line summary), and the semantic reranking feature with fallback behavior. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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 exceptionally concise, consisting of two sentences that front-load the purpose and key details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient for an AI agent to parse quickly.

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 description covers all essential aspects: what it searches, the scope (629 operators), how results are returned (ranked relevance, fields per hit), and the optional semantic reranking with fallback. Without an output schema, it sufficiently describes the return format. The limit parameter is in the schema, so no gap in completeness.

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 100%, so the schema documents the parameters. The description adds meaning by explaining the semantic parameter's behavior and fallback, providing context beyond the schema's basic descriptions. It effectively enhances the parameter semantics.

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 function: searching the embedded operator knowledge base by keyword, with specifics like '629 operators', 'fully offline', and ranking by relevance. It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'find_td_nodes' or 'get_td_nodes' which deal with network nodes, not the operator reference.

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 explicitly advises when to use the tool: 'Use it to discover the right operator before creating nodes instead of guessing a type', with concrete examples. It also explains the semantic option. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools or state when not to use it, missing a chance to fully clarify its scope.

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