examples.search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description adds no additional behavioral disclosures (e.g., sorting, pagination, or result format). The description is adequate given the annotations but offers no extra behavioral context beyond the annotation hints.

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 sentence that is concise, front-loaded with the action and resource, and includes all key filter dimensions. No unnecessary words or structures.

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?

With 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose but omits details like the default limit behavior (capped at server maximum) and potential sorting or pagination. Given the presence of annotations and schema, the description is nearly complete but could benefit from mentioning defaults and result ordering.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents each parameter. The description only lists the parameter categories (text, principle coverage, difficulty, library) without adding further semantic detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Search' and the resource 'curated examples', and lists the filter dimensions (text, principle coverage, difficulty, library). It distinctively positions the tool from siblings like 'examples.get' and 'guides.search' by specifying the resource and filtering scope.

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 implies the tool is used for searching examples, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., 'guides.search' or 'principles.search'), nor does it mention when not to use it or any prerequisites. Usage context is only implied.

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