search_tools

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context about the 'detail_level' parameter's effects (e.g., 'name' for just tool names, 'summary' for names and descriptions, 'full' for complete definitions), which goes beyond the schema. However, it doesn't cover other behavioral aspects like response format, pagination, error handling, or performance characteristics that would be helpful for an agent.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: it starts with the core purpose, then immediately provides crucial usage guidance about the 'detail_level' parameter. Every sentence earns its place by adding value, with no redundant or unnecessary information. The structure is clear and efficient.

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 tool's moderate complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides adequate but incomplete context. It explains the purpose and key parameter behavior but lacks information about return values, error conditions, or how results are structured. Without an output schema, the description should ideally provide more guidance on what the tool returns.

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%, so the schema already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds some semantic value by explaining the 'detail_level' parameter's impact on returned information, but it doesn't provide additional meaning for other parameters beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high.

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's purpose: 'Search for available tools by keyword or category.' It specifies the verb ('Search') and resource ('available tools'), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_bugs_global' or 'web_search', which are also search tools but for different resources.

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 some usage context by mentioning the 'detail_level' parameter to control information returned, which implies when to use different levels. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_bugs_global' or 'web_search', nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites for its use.

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