search

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It details parameters, constraints (e.g., patterns, valid ranges), pagination via next_token, and return structure (items, nextToken, totalMatchCount). It does not explicitly state idempotency or rate limits, but the example and parameter details provide solid behavioral insight.

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 well-structured with Args, Returns, and Example sections. It is longer than necessary but justified by the need to explain 10 parameters without schema descriptions. The one-line purpose statement at the start aids quick understanding.

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 the tool's complexity (10 parameters, no output schema), the description covers all inputs, return values, and pagination. It lacks only minor details like error handling or typical use comparisons, but is sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 provide full parameter semantics. It does so comprehensively, including types, valid values (e.g., search_scope enums, additional_attributes options), patterns, optionality, and constraints. The example demonstrates usage, adding practical context.

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 'Searches for assets in Amazon DataZone,' which clearly specifies the verb and resource. However, the search_scope parameter includes GLOSSARY, GLOSSARY_TERM, and DATA_PRODUCT, making the tool broader than just assets. This slight inconsistency prevents 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like search_listings, search_types, or search_group_profiles. It does not specify exclusions or prerequisites beyond the required parameters, leaving the agent to infer appropriateness from the parameter list.

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