search_variables

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does provide non-obvious context: variables are atomic units and their IDs feed get_data. However, it does not disclose return format, whether results are partial-name matches, pagination, or limit behavior.

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 sentences front-load the core purpose, then add the minimum necessary conceptual and filtering context. No filler or redundant restatement of the name.

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 optional-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns conceptually (variable records with IDs), how to filter, and how it fits with get_data. It omits only limit handling and explicit return-field details, which are minor for this class of tool.

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 67%; the schema already documents name and subject_id, and the description adds that subject_id comes from search_subjects and that filters combine with 'and/or'. It adds no semantics for the 'limit' parameter, which remains undocumented in both schema and 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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Search for variables (data series) in GUS BDL') and defines what a variable is, distinguishing it clearly from search_subjects/search_units by its atomic data-series role and connection to get_data.

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?

It gives clear context by instructing the user to filter by 'subject_id (from search_subjects) and/or name', which implies the correct workflow of selecting subjects first and then finding variables. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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