search_research_shayari

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'search' which implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't disclose whether the search has any side effects, requires specific permissions, or has rate limits. It also doesn't explain what 'non-active' means in concrete terms or what kind of results are returned (e.g., does it return full records or just metadata?).

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 a single, concise sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose with the verb 'search' and resource, and includes the key qualifier 'source-valid but non-active' to clarify scope.

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 that there is no output schema, no parameter description coverage, and no annotations, the description needs to provide more context to be complete. It doesn't explain the meaning of 'source-valid' and 'non-active', which are crucial for an agent to determine whether this tool is appropriate. It also doesn't specify the return format or any limitations beyond the implicit 'search'. With two parameters and no schema coverage, the description is insufficient for reliable invocation.

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%, so the schema provides no semantic meaning for the parameters. The description mentions 'query' contextually but doesn't explicitly describe either 'query' or 'limit' meaning. 'limit' is self-explanatory from the schema (max 100), but 'query' could benefit from clarification (e.g., what fields are searched). Since the schema lacks descriptions, the description should compensate but it doesn't provide any parameter-specific guidance.

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 states a specific verb ('search') and a specific resource ('source-valid but non-active research records'). It clearly distinguishes from 'search_shayari' by specifying the subset (non-active research records). However, it doesn't explicitly name the sibling alternative, which would have made it a 5.

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 when to use this tool (when searching for non-active research records) and indirectly suggests that 'search_shayari' is for active ones, but it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternative tools. The guidance is clear enough for the primary use case but lacks explicit exclusions.

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