search_definitions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It explains the return format ('JSON array of matching concepts with iri, label, definition, and score') and the default limit, which adds useful context beyond the schema. However, it does not mention nuances such as case sensitivity, matching semantics, or error behavior, leaving some room for improvement.

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 well-structured with a clear opening sentence, an explicit usage hint, and labeled 'Args:' and 'Returns:' sections. Every sentence contributes valuable information without unnecessary padding, making it highly concise and front-loaded.

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?

For a relatively simple search tool with an output schema and only two parameters, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, when to use, parameter meanings, and return value. It is complete for the tool's complexity, and no critical gaps are evident.

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 does by clarifying that 'query' is the search term to match against definitions and that 'limit' is the maximum number of results, which adds meaning beyond the bare schema titles. The explanation is sufficient, though not exhaustive.

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 function: 'Search FOLIO concepts by definition text' and 'Finds legal concepts whose definitions match the query.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and differentiates from name-based search by explicitly referencing the search target as definitions.

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 for when to use this tool: 'Use this when searching by name doesn't find what you need.' It implies an alternative (name search) but does not explicitly name a sibling tool or specify when not to use it, so it falls short of the explicit exclusions expected for a score of 5.

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