find_directives_by_intent_keyword

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description adds minimal behavioral context. It mentions 'direct keyword lookup' but does not disclose return format, case sensitivity, or behavior when no matches are found. With annotations covering safety, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

Single sentence with 11 words, entirely front-loaded with the verb and object. No superfluous language; every word is necessary for the purpose.

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 simple tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It lacks output format details (e.g., returns an array of IDs). However, given the tool's simplicity, it is sufficiently contextual for typical use.

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 coverage is 100%—parameters 'keywords' and 'match_mode' are fully described in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning. Baseline is 3 due to high schema coverage.

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 verb 'find', the resource 'directive IDs', and the lookup mechanism 'matching one or more intent keywords'. It also distinguishes from siblings like 'find_directive_by_intent' by noting it is a 'direct keyword lookup', implying exact matching.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_directives' or 'get_directives_with_intent_keywords'. It implies direct keyword lookup but provides no guidance on when not to use it or prerequisites.

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