femm_api_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses return fields and the non-obvious filtering rule that common commands are always included, but says nothing about the limit parameter's effect, pagination, or result ordering.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then the two filter vocabularies, then examples, then the follow-up call. Every clause carries information; no filler.

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 read-only search with no output schema or annotations, the description covers purpose, filters, return fields, and the downstream call. The main gap is the unexplained limit/result-count behavior.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the physics and phase filters and gives query examples, but leaves the limit parameter (default 15) entirely unexplained, so one of four parameters remains undocumented in both schema and prose.

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 (Search) and resource (catalog of every FEMM 5 scripting command), and explicitly names what it returns (name, signature, description). It cleanly distinguishes itself from the sibling femm_api_get, which it positions as the follow-up for full args.

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?

Gives clear context for use and an explicit workflow hand-off ('Then femm_api_get(name) for full args'), plus concrete example queries. It does not state when-not to use search (e.g., when the command name is already known), so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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