Search

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, and destructive behavior, so the description only needs to add operational context. It discloses that results are a list of facility objects with id/title/url and positions them as citable live pages, which is useful beyond the schema. It doesn't mention result limits or ranking, but that is minor for an annotated read-only search.

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?

Three sentences with no filler; the search action and return format come first, the workflow follows, and the alternative-tool routing closes. Every sentence earns its place.

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 single-parameter read-only search with an output schema, the description delivers everything needed: what it returns, how to follow through via fetch or citation, and when to use the structured sibling instead. No critical operational information is missing.

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% and includes an example for `query`, which already carries the parameter weight. The description reinforces that `query` is free-text by routing structured queries to search_facilities, adding meaning about what should NOT be passed to this parameter.

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?

States a specific action ('Search DC Hub'), a concrete resource ('data-center facilities'), and the output shape ({id, title, url}). It also names the most similar structured sibling (search_facilities), so an agent can distinguish this free-text search from that structured query tool.

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?

Explicitly says free-text queries are the intended use and directs structured queries by MW, operator, status, or market to search_facilities. It also gives the downstream workflow: pass an id to fetch or open the url for citation, so when-to-use and next steps are both clear.

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