Search

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

The description discloses the return normalization behavior: 'Results are always returned as a flat array (the client normalizes both raw arrays and {data:[...]} wrappers from the API).' It also explains the effect of an empty query ('Defaults to empty string which returns all/recent resources'). These details go beyond the annotations, which only state readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, adding actionable 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 efficiently structured: purpose and alternative first, then a compact enumeration of type semantics, then the normalization caveat. Every sentence serves a distinct function—purpose, parameter guidance, and return behavior—with no 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?

For a 3-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete: it covers the API endpoint, the distinction from smart search, all meaningful type semantics, default query behavior, and result shape. The absence of pagination details is mitigated by the size parameter's max of 50 and the normalization note.

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?

While the input schema covers 100% of parameters, the description elevates understanding by mapping each enum value to its concrete search behavior, e.g., 'customer_profile' searches names, emails, and all channel addresses. It also clarifies the default of query as returning all/recent resources. This adds semantic depth that the schema's generic descriptions lack.

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 'POST /api/search — Low-level search for Gorgias resources by text query', which clearly identifies the verb, resource, and mechanism. It further distinguishes itself from gorgias_smart_search by explicitly stating that smart_search is for 'intelligent ticket search', leaving no ambiguity about the tool's role.

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 provides an explicit alternative: 'For intelligent ticket search with auto-detection of emails, names, views, tags, and keywords, use gorgias_smart_search instead.' This tells an agent when to choose the sibling tool over this one. The 'low-level' label also implies this tool is for precise, type-constrained searches.

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