search

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully reveals the result handle format (r<run>.<s>.<i>) and variant suffix, but it doesn't mention pagination, result limits, or any side effects. The read-only nature is inferable from 'Search' but not explicitly stated.

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 dense sentence with no filler, making it concise and front-loaded. However, the compactness creates ambiguity (e.g., '1–100' and '{store, query}'), so it's not maximally clear.

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?

Despite an output schema existing, the description fails to explain key parameters like redetect and description_chars, and only partially clarifies entries. The workflow hint is helpful, but overall the tool cannot be used with full confidence without making assumptions about three of the four inputs.

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%, so the description must compensate. It provides some meaning for 'entries' by suggesting each has 'store' and 'query' fields, but limit, redetect, and description_chars are completely unexplained, leaving the agent with significant gaps for three of four 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 verb 'Search' and resource 'entries' clearly identify the tool's core purpose. The description also hints at the workflow by mentioning results can be passed to product or quote, which helps distinguish it from downstream tools, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'images' and the '{store, query}' notation is ambiguous.

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 gives clear workflow context: search first, then pass handles to product or quote. It doesn't state when not to use the tool or compare it to the 'images' sibling, so it lacks explicit exclusions but still provides useful situational guidance.

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