search

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

Beyond the readOnly annotation, the description discloses cost-relevant behavior: key/count cost least, full is a costly audit, and paginated results may come as a cut list beginning with {"more": ...}. It also explains temporal semantics via as_of/as_known_at, though it remains terse.

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 front-loaded and densely packed, but its telegraphic semicolon-heavy style makes it harder to parse than necessary. It is reasonably sized for a 16-parameter tool but sacrifices clarity for brevity.

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 16-parameter search tool with no schema descriptions and no output schema, the description is incomplete: it does not explain mode, depth, exclude, per_kind, or min_score, and gives only fragmentary hints about return values. An agent would need to infer too much to invoke it reliably.

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% across 16 parameters, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains several important params (kind, rule, text, where, related_to, via, as_of, as_known_at, detail, limit/after), but omits mode, depth, exclude, per_kind, and min_score, leaving substantial gaps.

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 opens with "Find subjects", which gives a verb and resource, and then lists filtering modes like kind, rule, text, and where. However, "subjects" is undefined and the description does not clearly distinguish this tool from siblings such as context, history, or related.

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?

Usage guidance is implied through phrases like "brief adds facts (no context call needed)" and "full: an audit, costly", which help choose a detail level. But there is no explicit statement of when to use this tool instead of context, history, annotate, or related.

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