duo_rio_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description's 'Search' is consistent. The description adds a helpful behavioral note (avoid full questions), but doesn't elaborate on other traits. With annotations present, this is adequate but not exceptional.

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 sentences with no waste. The first sentence front-loads the purpose, and the second adds concise usage direction. Every word earns its place.

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 two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality and provides usage examples. It could be improved by briefly describing the output, but it is largely complete given the tool's low complexity.

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 50%: 'query' has a description with examples, while 'top' has no description. The description adds meaning for 'query' ('Use institution or program names') but does not mention 'top', leaving its purpose unexplained. The schema provides constraints for 'top' (default, min, max), but the description could compensate further.

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 a specific register (DUO RIO) using institution or program names. The verb 'Search' and specific resource name distinguish it from sibling tools like duo_datasets_search or duo_schools.

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 clear usage context: 'Use institution or program names' and warns against full questions. Examples in the parameter schema reinforce correct usage. However, no explicit alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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