search_agendas

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that search is by title or description and returns a list, but does not mention read-only nature, matching semantics, result ordering, or behavior with no results. These are significant gaps for a search tool.

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 compact and well-structured with Args and Returns sections. Every sentence is informative, with no redundant or wasteful content.

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 search tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and parameter semantics. However, it lacks explicit read-only disclosure and differentiation from sibling list/search tools, which would improve completeness.

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 schema has no descriptions, so the description must compensate. It provides helpful definitions for both parameters: 'query: The search query string' and 'limit: Maximum number of results to return (default: 10)'. This adds meaning beyond the raw schema, though query formatting details are absent.

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's purpose: 'Search agendas by title or description.' This is a specific verb+resource+scope that distinguishes it from siblings like list_agendas (which lists all) and get_agenda (which retrieves a single agenda).

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 usage for finding agendas matching a query, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. The 'Search' verb gives context, but no alternative tool names are mentioned.

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