search

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses sandbox restrictions (no network, filesystem, process, fetch, imports, API key), return behavior (JSON-serializable data, console logs captured), and a critical check (spec.info.writesEnabled) before planning writes. This is exemplary behavioral disclosure.

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?

Although the description is relatively long, it is densely packed with actionable information. The structure front-loads the purpose, then logically covers usage, globals, key starting points, sandbox constraints, and examples. Every sentence adds value, and the code examples are illustrative rather than filler.

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 complex (user-supplied JavaScript), has no annotations, and no output schema. The description covers all necessary context: what to query, the shape of the catalog, examples, restrictions, and the writesEnabled safety check. It is fully self-contained for an agent to decide when and how to invoke it.

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 only offers a terse description for 'code', but the tool description provides extensive semantics: the code must be an async arrow function, a global 'spec' object is available, and examples demonstrate valid usage patterns. This goes far beyond schema coverage.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search the curated Lexware Office API catalog by running a JavaScript async arrow function.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings by stating 'Use this before execute' and positioning the tool as a discovery mechanism.

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 instructs when to use the tool ('Use this before execute') and what to use it for (discover endpoints, request shapes, response notes, workflows, caveats). This implicitly contrasts with the 'execute' sibling, providing clear contextual guidance without needing to name alternatives.

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