search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the source ('easydrawingguides.com') and implies a web search, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, response format, pagination, or error handling. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational 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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary details. It uses clear language and avoids redundancy, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 (search functionality with 3 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error cases, or behavioral constraints, leaving the agent with insufficient context for reliable use beyond basic parameter passing.

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 description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the input schema, which has 100% coverage. It implies the 'query' parameter is for drawing-related terms but doesn't elaborate on syntax or examples beyond what's in the schema. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the schema already documents parameters well.

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 purpose: 'Search for drawing tutorials and guides from easydrawingguides.com'. It specifies the verb ('Search'), resource ('drawing tutorials and guides'), and source domain. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_guide' or 'list_categories', which might offer alternative ways to access content.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_guide' (likely for retrieving specific guides) or 'list_categories' (likely for browsing categories), nor does it specify prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual cues for choosing search over other methods.

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