search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by disclosing the return format ({results: [{id, title, url}]}) and that only summaries are returned, implying the need for a separate fetch call. This is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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?

Two concise sentences: the first states purpose and return format, the second gives a usage tip and directs to fetch. Every word earns its place; no filler or repetition of schema/annotations.

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 parameter and an output schema, the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, what it returns, how to proceed for more detail, and how to formulate queries. No essential guidance is missing.

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 schema only defines 'query' as a string with no description (0% coverage). The description compensates by stating 'Natural-language questions work best', implying the query is a natural-language search phrase rather than a structured keyword. This gives meaningful semantic guidance absent from the schema.

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 Zeug's knowledge base' with a specific resource. It also distinguishes from siblings by noting that results are summaries and that 'call fetch(id) for full content' — a direct pointer to the appropriate sibling.

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: use this to search, then use fetch for full content. It also advises that natural-language questions work best, which guides how to phrase the query. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare with other siblings like near/recall/why.

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