search_categories

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'partial matching' which adds some context about search behavior, but doesn't describe important aspects like pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what the return format looks like. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, efficient sentence that contains no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple search tool and front-loads the essential information about what the tool does.

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 search tool with 2 parameters, 100% schema coverage, but no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and some behavioral context ('partial matching'). However, it doesn't compensate for the lack of output schema by describing return values, and with no annotations, it should provide more behavioral transparency about what to expect from the operation.

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 the schema already fully documents both parameters ('query' and 'limit'). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying the 'query' parameter is used for 'category name' searching with 'partial matching', but doesn't provide additional syntax, format, or usage details. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is high.

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 the action ('Search for') and resource ('icon categories'), specifying the search field ('by category name') and matching method ('using partial matching'). It distinguishes from 'list_all_categories' by indicating search functionality, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'fuzzy_search_categories' which might use different matching algorithms.

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 implies usage for searching categories with partial matching on names, but doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'fuzzy_search_categories' or 'list_all_categories'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving usage context somewhat ambiguous.

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