search_criteria

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only search operation without stating it explicitly, and it doesn't cover aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination behavior (beyond the cursor parameter in the schema). The examples add some context but lack comprehensive behavioral details.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with a clear purpose statement followed by targeted examples. Every sentence earns its place by reinforcing usage or providing practical guidance, with no wasted words or redundant information.

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 complexity of a search tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete for guiding usage but lacks details on return values or error handling. It compensates well with examples and context, though it could be more comprehensive for a tool with multiple filtering options.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'section' in examples, but it doesn't provide additional meaning, syntax, or format details for parameters like 'policy_type' or 'jurisdiction' that aren't covered in the examples.

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 with specific verbs ('Search through coverage criteria blocks') and resources ('across Medicare policies'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'search_policies' by emphasizing it's 'more targeted than full policy search' and focuses on 'specific indications, limitations, or documentation requirements'.

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('more targeted than full policy search'), but it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools, such as 'search_policies' for broader searches or 'get_policy' for full policy retrieval.

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