search_benefits

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explains that the tool searches a dictionary and that it returns official service names, which implies a read-only list operation. However, it does not disclose any side effects, permissions needed, pagination behavior, or what happens on no matches. While safe to assume, the description is thin on behavioral detail.

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 concise sentences, no filler. The first sentence defines the resource and purpose; the second provides usage context. Front-loaded with the key verb 'Search' and the specific resource. Every word 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?

The tool is simple (2 params, no output schema) and the description covers purpose and usage adequately. It implies the return value (a list of official names) but does not explicitly state the output format. Given the simplicity and the connection to `search_queues`, this is a minor gap, but the lack of an explicit return description slightly reduces completeness.

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% – both `name` and `limit` are fully described in the schema (partial name, case-insensitive, default 25). The description adds no extra meaning about parameters; it only talks about the overall purpose. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since structured data already documents parameters.

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 the specific resource ('NFZ benefit dictionary') and that it provides official service names used by `search_queues`. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like `search_queues` (which accepts these names) and `list_provinces` (which lists provinces, not benefits). The purpose is unambiguous.

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 gives explicit instruction: 'Use this to discover the exact wording before searching queues.' This tells the agent when to invoke the tool (before using `search_queues`) and the rationale. It implicitly contrasts with `search_queues` by positioning this as a prerequisite lookup step.

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