Search Tools

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the semantic search (RAG) mechanism, implying a read-only discovery operation, but lacks details on pagination, result limits, or edge cases. The output schema compensates for return structure, but behavioral nuance is limited.

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?

Two concise, front-loaded sentences with zero redundancy. It states the core function and a clear usage directive without unnecessary 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?

For a search/discovery tool, the description covers purpose, usage, and leverages the output schema for return details. It could explicitly name sibling tools for contrast, but the existing guidance is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

Parameter descriptions in the schema cover 100% of parameters, so the description adds no extra semantics. The mention of 'specific task or integration' loosely hints at query usage but does not go beyond the schema, warranting the baseline score.

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 for available integration tools/actions via semantic search (RAG), using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like list-integrations by emphasizing discovery through search rather than simple enumeration.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: 'Use this to discover what tools are available for a specific task or integration.' This tells the agent when to invoke this tool, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it.

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