uae_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description discloses key behaviors: it searches the catalog, ranks results by relevance, and with deep=true searches live portals. It does not mention read-only nature explicitly, but for a search tool this is adequate.

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: two sentences cover purpose, ranking, deep mode, and use case. No redundant information; front-loaded with key functionality.

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 complexity and presence of an output schema, the description covers main behaviors (bilingual, federation, deep mode). It lacks details on pagination or error handling, but is sufficient for initial understanding.

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 bears responsibility for parameter meanings. It explains the deep parameter and implies query accepts Arabic and English, but does not describe limit or further details for query. Partial compensation.

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 performs federated bilingual search across a catalog, ranks official sources by relevance, and offers a deep mode for dataset discovery. This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools which focus on source management.

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 indicates the tool is ideal for dataset-discovery agents and explains the deep mode. While it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, the context implies its primary use case for general search and dataset discovery.

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