Search

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/non-destructive/closed-world, and the description still adds substantial behavior: results are ranked by relevance across all types with no type filter, pagination semantics including the past-the-end response, the exact return shape (type, Gramps ID, summary, handle plus page and total), and a concrete failure mode (HTTP 500 on long queries) with a retry strategy.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and routing before mechanics, and every sentence carries information — wildcard syntax, result shape, pagination edge case, error recovery. It is dense and slightly long for a search tool, but there is no filler to cut.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by describing the return line format, the page/total count, and the empty-page behavior. Combined with the error-recovery note, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly on the first attempt.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description goes further by explaining that page/pagesize step through ranked hits and that pagesize caps at 100, and by framing query as free text with wildcard endings. Much of the wildcard and range detail duplicates the schema's own parameter descriptions, so the added meaning is real but modest.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Find records by words in them') and immediately scopes it as one query across ten named object types. It explicitly distinguishes itself from list_objects (browse/filter one type) and get_object (read a hit in full), so an agent can route without opening a schema.

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?

Gives an explicit entry condition ('Start here when you have a name, place, title or other text but no Gramps ID') and names both alternatives with the conditions that select them: list_objects for browsing/filtering by fields, get_object for reading a hit by ID or handle. When-not guidance is implicit in 'there is no type filter'.

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