search_macros

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the hard cap of 30 results, that message content is excluded, the visibility scoping (all/own/teams), the auth requirement, and that an invalid view value yields a 400. It doesn't describe the response shape or sorting beyond "most used," which keeps it out of the top band.

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 core scope statement is front-loaded and tight, but the leading name restatement, the raw endpoint path, and the "Tags: Macros" line are boilerplate that adds no decision-relevant information. Roughly half the text earns its place.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the definition covers limits, auth, and scoping adequately, but it never says what fields each result contains beyond the absence of message content. An agent can call it correctly but cannot anticipate the payload it will have to parse.

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 input schema already documents both q and view including the enum and the 400 behavior. The description's "filtered by name and by where they are offered" merely echoes the schema at a higher level, adding no new semantics; baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Search Macros") and pins down scope: the 30 most used macros the caller may apply across all/own/team visibility. It stops short of distinguishing itself from the sibling get_macros, so an agent must infer the difference between searching and fetching macros.

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?

Usage is only implied: the caller learns this is for finding applicable macros and that "Any authenticated agent" may call it, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus get_macros/get_macros_compact and no when-not guidance. The auth note is a precondition, not routing guidance.

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