search_glubler_catalog

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. It only states what the tool searches, but does not disclose whether it is read-only, the return format (list vs. suggestions), ordering, pagination, or error behavior. The limit parameter in the schema hints at a list, but the description itself adds no behavioral context beyond the basic search action.

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 a single, compact sentence that states the action and scope clearly. It is appropriately front-loaded with the verb and resource. No filler or redundancy, making it concise and easy to parse. It lacks structured details, but the brevity is not a flaw given the tool's simplicity.

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 2 well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but has gaps. It does not explain what the search returns (e.g., a list of glubler names, suggestions, or full objects), how results are ranked, or behavior for empty queries. Since there are no annotations to cover safety or side effects, the description could be more explicit about the tool's behavior. Overall, it is minimally sufficient but not comprehensive.

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%: both query and limit have descriptive text in the schema. The description itself does not add any extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The schema already explains query examples and the limit's default/max, which is sufficient for parameter understanding.

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 states a specific verb ('Search') and a specific resource ('existing websites and games/tools/news already cataloged in Glublers gDatabase'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like list_my_glublers or get_glubler_details, which operate on specific user-owned or public glublers. The purpose is unambiguous, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings. It does not mention scenarios where this search is appropriate (e.g., before creating a new glubler to check duplicates) or when to prefer other tools like get_glubler_details for fetching a known item. The usage context is implied only by the tool's name and sibling list.

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