search_data

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool returns 'relevant sectoral data' without explaining matching behavior, result ordering, pagination, or any limitations. For a search tool, this lacks transparency about how searching is performed and what constitutes 'relevant'.

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 concise and front-loaded: the first clause states the action and scope, the second the result. It earns its place with no fluff. It could have added more useful context without becoming verbose, but it is not poorly structured.

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?

This is a simple tool with 2 parameters and no output schema. The description covers the core functionality and mentions the return type ('relevant sectoral data'), but it lacks context on how this fits with sibling tools, the structure of results, or any limitations. It is adequate but not complete for an agent to fully predict 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?

The schema description coverage is 100% via input schema: 'keyword' and 'limit' are both described. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 but does not go 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 a specific verb ('search') and resource ('data in Satu Data Ngawi'), and distinguishes this as a keyword-based search tool from sibling tools like get_kategori_sektoral or get_detail_data. However, it does not explicitly define the scope of 'data sektoral' or why this search tool exists alongside the specific retrieval tools, leaving a small gap.

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 phrase 'berdasarkan kata kunci' implies the tool should be used when a keyword is available, rather than browsing via categories or specific lookups. However, it offers no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives, no exclusionary guidance, and no mention of prerequisites or typical scenarios.

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