BuildBetter

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 searching with optional filters and limits, but doesn't cover important aspects like pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or what constitutes an 'extraction/signal'. For a search tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational traits.

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 ('search extractions by keyword/phrase') and briefly mentions optional features. There's no wasted language, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's function. It's appropriately sized for a search operation.

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 complexity of a search tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'extractions/signals' are, how results are returned, or any behavioral constraints. The description alone is insufficient for an agent to fully understand how to use this tool effectively in context.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'keyword/phrase' and 'extraction type filter', but doesn't provide additional context about parameter interactions or search semantics. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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: searching extractions/signals by keyword/phrase with optional filtering. It specifies the verb ('search') and resource ('extractions/signals'), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'find-fields' or 'query-template' which might have overlapping functionality. The description is specific but lacks sibling distinction.

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 like 'find-fields' or 'query-template' from the sibling list. It mentions optional filters but doesn't specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. Without context on how this differs from other search/query tools, usage is implied rather than explicitly defined.

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