Search Telgea Capabilities

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, and the description adds the important behavioral fact that no Telgea operation is actually executed. What is missing is any hint of the return shape (tool names, descriptions, ranking) — notable given there is no output schema.

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 terse clauses with the core distinction ('does not call Telgea') front-loaded; no filler. It verges on under-specification rather than bloat, but every sentence earns its place.

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 schema-less-output discovery tool, the definition should explain what results look like and how to consume them; it doesn't. Annotations cover the safety profile, but the parameter documentation gap and undisclosed return format leave real holes for a tool whose output is the whole point.

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 0% and neither parameter is mentioned in the description. An agent must infer that 'query' is the search term and 'limit' caps results, with no guidance on syntax, match fields, or default behavior. With zero structured documentation, the description should have compensated but does not.

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 states a specific action ('Find the Telgea tool to use') and clarifies the resource is a meta/discovery layer rather than a Telgea operation. It distinguishes itself from the many action siblings via 'Does not call Telgea. Discovery only.' Minor gap: it doesn't state what a match looks like, but the routing intent is unambiguous.

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?

'Find the Telgea tool to use' implies the use case (resolve an intent to a concrete tool) but never states when-not-to-use or how to choose among results. The 'Discovery only' note implicitly contrasts with siblings that do call Telgea, but no alternatives are named and no post-discovery guidance is given.

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