search_attributes

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It describes three modes, return contents (suggestions with descriptions, namespaces, targets, arguments), and implies no side effects. It does not cover error handling or limitations but is adequate for a read-only search tool.

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 well-structured with a clear lead sentence, followed by a usage note and a list of modes. Every sentence adds value, there is no fluff, and it's appropriately concise for the complexity.

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?

Given three optional parameters and no output schema, the description completely covers behavior, return content, and usage modes with examples. It leaves no major ambiguity 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds significant meaning by explaining three modes of operation based on parameter combinations (no params, category only, query with optional category) and provides examples, which goes beyond the schema's individual parameter descriptions.

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 it 'Search[es] for available PHP 8 attributes in Laravel' and returns specific details (descriptions, namespaces, targets, arguments). It distinguishes from siblings like analyze_attributes and search_elements by focusing on attribute discovery with a specific domain (Laravel) and return structure.

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 explicitly advises 'Use this before adding attributes to files or methods' and outlines three modes of operation, providing strong context. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or compare to alternatives, but the usage scenario is clear.

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