catalog.search

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

No annotations are present, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool does not expose every schema, which is a useful limitation, but it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, returns partial results, handles pagination, or has any side effects. The behavioral transparency is minimal for a tool with no annotations.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. The phrase 'without exposing every schema' is not redundant and serves as a useful caveat. There is no filler or unnecessary context, though the sentence could arguably be more explicit about query semantics.

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 two-parameter tool, the description is not complete. It gives no information about what the search results will contain, what fields are returned, or how the parameters behave. The absence of an output schema and lack of parameter descriptions mean an agent has to guess at basic invocation details. The 'without exposing every schema' hint partially addresses output, but not sufficiently.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention either 'query' or 'limit' at all. The description says nothing about what values should be provided, how the query is interpreted, or how limit affects results. With no parameter documentation in either the schema or description, this is a significant gap.

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 states a clear verb ('Search') and resource ('the trusted downstream tool catalog'), and the qualifier 'without exposing every schema' distinguishes it from generic catalog queries. It is not a tautology and clearly separates the search intent from the sibling tools, which are about planning and policy explanation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus action.plan or policy.explain. It does not name alternatives, mention exclusions, or specify context such as 'when you need to find a downstream tool.' The usage is only implied by the tool's name and generic search phrasing.

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