dex_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions filtering capabilities for reminders and contacts (e.g., startDate, endDate, archived status), which adds some context beyond basic search. However, it doesn't cover critical behaviors like pagination (implied by 'take' and 'cursor' parameters but not explained), rate limits, authentication needs, or what the search returns. For a 9-parameter tool with no annotations, this is insufficient.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose. Both sentences add value: the first defines the search scope, and the second provides entity-specific filtering details. There's no wasted text, but it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points for entity types).

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 (9 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is moderately complete. It covers the tool's purpose and some parameter semantics, but lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., pagination, errors) and return values. For a search tool with many parameters and no structured support, this leaves gaps that could hinder effective use by an AI agent.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for 'entity' by listing enum values and their search scopes (e.g., contacts searches name, email, company), and explains filtering for 'archived', 'startDate', 'endDate', and 'isComplete'. However, it doesn't cover 'searchQuery', 'take', 'cursor', or 'enhanced', leaving 5 of 9 parameters undocumented. This partial coverage meets the baseline but doesn't fully compensate for the schema gap.

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 searches across Dex entities by keyword, specifying the verb (search) and resource (Dex entities). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like dex_list_contacts or dex_get_contact by emphasizing keyword-based search across multiple entity types rather than listing or retrieving specific items. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings, so it's not a perfect 5.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: for keyword searches across various Dex entities. It implicitly suggests alternatives by specifying entity types (e.g., use this for contacts, groups, etc.), but doesn't explicitly name when not to use it or direct to specific sibling tools like dex_list_contacts for non-search scenarios. This is good guidance but lacks explicit exclusions.

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