Search Workers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the operation is 'Safe, read-only' and clarifies case-insensitive substring matching, which are genuinely useful behavioral details. It does not mention output format, but an output schema exists to cover that.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences that front-load the action and resource, then add the key matching behavior and safety profile. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or 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?

For a simple search tool with one required parameter and an output schema, the description is complete. It explains the search semantics, case sensitivity, and safety profile, leaving no critical gap for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 input schema provides no description for the 'query' parameter, so schema coverage is 0%. The description compensates by defining query as a 'name substring' and specifying case-insensitive behavior, giving the agent enough understanding to pass an appropriate value.

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 action ('Search'), a resource ('workers'), and a precise matching criterion ('by name substring (case-insensitive)'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like get_worker, which likely performs exact retrieval, and terminate_worker or delete_worker, which are mutations.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool: when a case-insensitive name substring search is needed. It does not explicitly list exclusions or point to alternatives, but the phrasing makes the intended use obvious relative to exact-lookup siblings like get_worker.

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