search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It thoroughly discloses the sandbox limitations ('no network, filesystem, process, fetch, imports, or API key'), return expectations ('Return JSON-serializable data; console logs are captured'), and the available global 'spec' object, providing strong behavioral context.

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 long but well-structured with bullet points and code blocks. Each section serves a purpose: purpose, usage, global, starting points, sandbox, and examples. It is front-loaded and scannable despite its length.

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 tool's complexity and the absence of an output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It explains the execution environment, data structures, use cases, constraints, and examples, which fully prepares an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

Although the schema already describes the 'code' parameter, the description goes far beyond by documenting the structure of the 'spec' global, listing key properties like domainIndex and workflows, and providing two complete code examples. This enriches the parameter meaning substantially.

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 function: 'Search the curated Lexware Office API catalog by running a JavaScript async arrow function.' It names the specific resource (catalog) and differentiates from the sibling 'execute' by explicitly prescribing use before it.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Use this before execute to discover endpoints, request shapes, response notes, workflows, and domain-specific caveats.' It also offers practical starting points and reminds the agent to check 'writesEnabled' before planning writes, effectively telling when and how to use the tool.

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