search_routes

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

The description discloses that the tool returns paginated results with specific fields (UUID, name, path, type) and implies a read-only search operation. However, it does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive or mention any authentication or rate-limit requirements, though such details are less critical for a 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 three sentences long, each serving a distinct purpose: stating the tool's function, describing its output, and providing next-step guidance. No words are wasted, and the information is efficiently front-loaded.

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?

Despite the absence of annotations and output schema, the description fully informs the agent: what the tool does, when to use it, what it returns (including key fields), and how to leverage the results with other tools. This is complete for the tool's complexity level.

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 input schema already provides clear descriptions for all three parameters (search, type, per_page), achieving 100% coverage. The description does not add additional semantic meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool searches for routes/pages by name, with the explicit purpose of finding existing routes before creating new ones. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_route, get_route, and delete_route.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('Use this to find existing routes before creating new ones') and tells how to use the results with sibling tools html_to_elements and get_route, effectively preventing duplicate routes and enabling further actions.

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