search

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

Annotations supply only readOnlyHint, so the description carries most of the behavioral burden and does so well: case-sensitive prefix matching, plaintext-indexed fields only, masked recipient identifiers, and account-scoped results. It also discloses the auth gate and which sibling action will not satisfy it.

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 short blocks with the core matching behavior front-loaded and access requirements separated. Dense but nearly every clause carries information; minor tightening is possible but nothing is redundant.

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?

With no output schema, the description still covers scope, matching semantics, masking, auth, and per-bucket limiting (via the schema). It stops short of describing the return shape or how results across the six buckets are grouped, which is the one gap for an agent consuming results.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine semantics beyond the schema: matching is case-sensitive, prefix-anchored, and limited to plaintext fields, with recipient identifiers masked. These constraints meaningfully change how an agent should craft q.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: a prefix-anchored global account search, and enumerates the six buckets it covers. This clearly distinguishes it from the many list_*/get_* siblings, which are bucket-specific, so an agent can tell it is the cross-bucket search entry point.

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?

Gives explicit prerequisites: a Proof account with PROOF_API_KEY set, plus the useful negative routing note that 'start_login does NOT open this tool'. It does not, however, compare against the bucket-specific alternatives (e.g. list_verifications, list_verification_requests) that overlap in purpose.

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