Search Standards (Full-Text)

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention result ranking, search algorithm specifics (e.g., case sensitivity, stemming), pagination, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a search tool.

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, well-structured sentence that includes examples. It is efficient and front-loaded with the core purpose, earning its place without extraneous text.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the search function and parameter intent. However, it omits details like result ordering, pagination behavior, and exact response format, which would be useful for an agent.

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?

All parameters have descriptions in the schema, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds example search terms but does not elaborate on parameter usage beyond what the schema already provides. 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 title 'Search Standards (Full-Text)' and description clearly state the tool performs full-text search across all NGSS standard content, with specific examples like 'energy transfer'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that filter by specific attributes (e.g., search_by_domain).

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 context by listing content types and example queries, implying usage for general text search. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like search_by_domain or search_by_disciplinary_core_idea.

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