loki_search_riders

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description adds limited behavioral context. It confirms the tool searches riders, but does not describe pagination, sorting, or the response structure (e.g., what fields are returned). The absence of output schema further burdens the description to explain behavior, which it fails to do adequately.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences that immediately convey the tool's purpose and a crucial usage hint. Every word is meaningful, with no redundancy or filler. This is exemplary conciseness.

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 the complexity of 6 parameters, no required fields, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It omits details about pagination (despite page and per_page parameters), default behavior, and the structure of search results. The openWorldHint annotation suggests flexible output, but the description does not prepare the agent for what to expect, making it incomplete.

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 description adds value by directing users to reference data for the status and type parameters, which are partially documented in the schema. However, it does not explain the other parameters (page, per_page, extra_filters) beyond what the schema provides. With 67% schema coverage, the description marginally compensates for the gap but does not fully clarify all parameters.

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 riders, defining them as 'delivery agents / phlebos'. It provides the verb 'Search' and resource 'riders', making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like loki_get_rider (single rider) or loki_get_hub_riders (riders by hub), which would elevate it to a 5.

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 advises using loki_reference_data to obtain valid values for status and type filters, which is helpful guidance. It lacks explicit instructions on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_rider for a specific rider, search_hubs for hubs), and does not mention pagination or default behavior. This provides some guidance but is not comprehensive.

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