Search the catalog

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the output format (ranked matches with docs URL and install command) and implies a read-only operation. However, it does not disclose potential limitations, auth requirements, or side effects.

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 extraneous information. It efficiently conveys the scope and output of the tool.

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 description adequately summarizes the main purpose and output, but lacks details about parameter usage (especially 'platform', 'domain', 'limit') and does not clarify whether results are paginated or how ranking works. Given 4 parameters and no output schema, more explanation is needed.

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 only 25% (only 'query' has a description). The description does not explain 'platform', 'domain', or 'limit' parameters beyond their types/enums from the schema. It adds no additional meaning for the majority of parameters.

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 performs a keyword search across catalog entries by name, category, section, and description, and returns ranked matches with specific fields (docs URL, install command). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_tool or list_sections.

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 a clear context for use (general keyword search) but does not explicitly advise when to use this tool over alternatives like get_tool or list_domains. No when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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