rekor_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the search types and that the output is UUIDs, which is appropriate for a read-only search operation. It could mention that no side effects occur, but the description is sufficiently transparent for this simple tool.

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, well-structured sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and each part adds value.

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 simple search tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, query types, and return value. It could briefly mention what happens on no results or multiple results, but it is largely complete.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with a generic description for the 'query' parameter. The description adds specific meaning by explaining the valid formats (email, SHA256 with prefix, fingerprint), which significantly enhances the schema's bare description.

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 'Search', the resource 'Rekor transparency log', and the specific search types (email, SHA256 hash, public key fingerprint), and that it returns entry UUIDs. This differentiates it from sibling tools that search other registries or package ecosystems.

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?

While the description explains what it searches by, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide any conditional guidance or when-not-to-use instructions. The context of sibling tools implies it's for Rekor-specific searches, but more explicit usage guidance would improve score.

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