search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or whether the search is read-only. The agent gains no safety or operational context beyond the basic function.

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 two sentences with no filler: it states the action and the primary use case. Every sentence contributes value, and the length is appropriate for the tool's simplicity.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not describe return format, limits, or what 'search across' entails. With many sibling search tools, more context is needed to fully guide selection.

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?

The single parameter 'query' is fully described in the schema (100% coverage), and the description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's 'Natural-language search query'. Baseline 3 applies since the schema handles the parameter documentation.

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 it searches across *arr libraries and TRaSH Guides, and identifies itself as the primary discovery tool for remote MCP clients. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool arr_search_all, which may have overlapping functionality.

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 use for remote discovery but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many specific search tools (e.g., sonarr_search, radarr_search). No when-not-to-use or alternative tools are mentioned, leaving the agent without clear decision criteria.

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