oahelper_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the return shape (each set with company_ref, date and question counts) and implies a non-mutating lookup via "Find" and "Lists", but says nothing about authentication, rate limits, pagination, or whether results are capped — meaningful gaps for a search tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 short sentences with zero filler. The purpose and the routing hint to oahelper_sync are front-loaded, and the return-contents sentence earns its place by telling the agent what to expect.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be fully documented, yet the description still summarizes them usefully. Purpose, input examples, and the alternative tool are all covered; only the absence of auth/limit context keeps it from being fully complete.

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 single parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does so reasonably by naming the expected value type (company name) and giving two concrete examples, which is enough to invoke the tool correctly even though it doesn't state matching semantics (exact vs partial, case sensitivity).

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 a company's OA question sets on OAHelper by name") and includes concrete input examples ("Amazon", "Kickdrum"). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling oahelper_sync by contrasting retrieval with download, 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?

The description gives a clear when-to-use-this-instead condition: use oahelper_sync to download sets into the offline library rather than this tool. It does not clarify the boundary with oahelper_company or oahelper_question, leaving some sibling ambiguity, but the primary alternative is named explicitly.

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