search_classes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavior burden. It discloses case-insensitivity and the fuzzy-match fallback, which are non-obvious and valuable. It does not mention result ordering or empty-result behavior, but the presence of an output schema likely covers return structure. It adds meaningful behavioral insight beyond the bare schema.

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?

Two tightly packed sentences. The first front-loads the primary action and key behaviors (case-insensitive, fuzzy fallback), and the second gives usage guidance. No filler or redundant phrasing.

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 straightforward search tool with an output schema present and only two params, the description is nearly sufficient. It explains the search behavior and primary use caseable gaps: it doesn't mention behavior when no results match beyond the fallback, or any limit semantics. These are minor for a search tool.

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 description must compensate. It implies 'query' is a name fragment via 'Find classes by name fragment', giving some meaning to that parameteraine, but it never mentions the 'limit' parameter or its semantics. The description covers only one of two parameters, leaving the other undocumented.

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 (classes), and the search mechanism (name fragment, case-insensitive). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by framing the operation as a fuzzy search fallback, which an agent can immediately differentiate from listing or other operations.

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?

It provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this when unsure of the exact class name.' However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when NOT to use it. This leaves exclusion logic to the agent's judgment, preventing a top score.

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