beliefs_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'search'. It does not reveal whether matching is exact, substring, or fuzzy, what parts of the beliefs are searched, how the limit affects results, or what kind of result structure is returned.

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?

A single, direct, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It immediately identifies the action and target resource and does not repeat schema details.

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 simple search tool with an output schema and an optional limit parameter, this is minimally viable: the agent knows what to pass in 'query'. But it lacks guidance on result behavior, limit semantics, and when to prefer sibling belief tools, and there are no annotations to compensate.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that 'query' is a word or phrase, which addresses the only required parameter. However, it says nothing about 'limit', leaving its meaning to be inferred from the name and default value in the schema.

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 ('Search'), a specific resource ('the 28 Fundamental Beliefs'), and the input type ('word or phrase'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like bible_search and beliefs_get because both the operation and target corpus are clearly named.

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 use case is implied: call this when you need to find a word or phrase within the 28 Fundamental Beliefs. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as beliefs_get for retrieving a specific belief or beliefs_list for browsing all beliefs.

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