searchcode

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It helpfully discloses that the service is free, requires no auth, and has no rate limits, which is useful context. However, it does not state that operations are read-only, describe return format or pagination, or explain failure modes.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then routes through the action modes compactly in a single sentence, followed by a short example. It is efficient, though the action enumeration is dense and could be slightly more scannable.

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 14-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description plus full schema coverage gives an agent enough to select an action and invoke it. The main remaining gap is that response shape and output behavior are not described, but the action routing and auth/rate-limit context cover most needs.

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%, so every parameter is already documented, including enums and defaults. The description adds only the example usage ('action=analyze', 'repository=...'), which repeats what the schema already conveys. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 capability ('Per-repo code intelligence via SearchCode') and enumerates the five action modes with their purposes. It is clear what the tool does, but it never distinguishes itself from sibling tools such as code_search, code_read, or analyze, which likely overlap.

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?

It gives explicit routing guidance for each action ('Use analyze for instant repo overview... search for searching code... findings for code quality issues...'), plus a concrete example. It lacks any when-not-to-use guidance or comparison against the overlapping sibling tools.

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