search_concepts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses fuzzy matching behavior, the limit parameter's default, and the return structure (JSON array with specific fields). It does not detail edge cases or error behavior, but for a search tool this is reasonable transparency.

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 well-structured: a one-line summary, a clarifying sentence, then Args/Returns sections. Every sentence adds useful information, with no fluff or repetition beyond minor overlap in the first two sentences.

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?

The tool is simple with two parameters, and the description covers both parameters, the fuzzy matching approach, and the return format. It lacks explicit discussion of no-result scenarios or pagination beyond the limit, but given the tool's simplicity, the description is largely complete.

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 coverage is 0% in the context signals, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It explains 'query' with concrete examples and 'limit' with its default, adding significant value beyond the bare schema types.

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 searches FOLIO concepts by label/name, using a specific verb and resource. It further specifies fuzzy matching and positions itself as the primary entry point for finding concepts, distinguishing it from siblings such as search_definitions and get_concept.

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 clear context by stating 'Use this as the primary entry point for finding concepts,' which indicates when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it lacks full exclusion/alternative guidance.

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