configure_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it documents accepted value domains, physical ranges (800 ps .. 10 s), the extra-keyword escape hatch with an example, and the failure mode ('unknown keywords raise ValueError'). It does not mention whether an existing search configuration is overwritten or whether errors surface elsewhere, so a 4 rather than 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the one-line purpose, then mode options, then per-mode parameter groups. Sentences are dense but each carries concrete information. Slightly terse fragment style with some abbreviations, but no wasted text.

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 12-parameter configuration tool with no annotations and no schema descriptions, the description supplies the value domains, units, ranges and the extra mechanism an agent needs. An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. The omission of enable and of any interaction with an existing search config are the only real gaps.

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 for all 12 parameters. It successfully documents mode, the edge_* and pulse_* families with allowed values and units, plus the semantics of extra. It covers most but not all parameters (e.g. enable is never mentioned), so it is strong but not complete.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: configuring event search on the acquired waveform, with a manual reference (3.22). It enumerates exactly which search types are supported and what parameters each takes. Sibling tools like get_search_config, get_search_event_time and navigate_to_event exist, but the description doesn't explicitly name them as alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

It explains what each mode does and constrains documented choices ('only these two search types are documented'), which implies when to pick EDGE vs PULSe. But it never states when to call this tool versus get_search_config or navigate_to_event, nor any prerequisite that a waveform must be acquired first. Usage is inferable rather than explicit.

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