ism_search

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

With no annotations, the description mentions results are ranked by relevance and limited, but doesn't state if the operation is read-only, has side effects, or mention pagination. Annotations would be helpful.

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, clear sentence followed by parameter explanation. Every word is necessary and no filler.

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?

While purpose and limit are clear, the 'query' parameter is underspecified. Output schema exists so return values don't need elaboration, but the description could add what ISM stands for or an example.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It explains the 'limit' parameter but only implicitly mentions 'query' as the search term. No details on query format, case sensitivity, or supported operators.

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 clearly states it provides full-text search over ISM control descriptions and topics, distinguishing it from sibling tools like ism_get (retrieve by ID) or ism_list_by_topic (list by category).

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 implies usage for searching when exact identifiers are unknown, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool references. The sibling list provides context but the description itself could be more explicit.

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