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. It discloses behavioral traits like 'fuzzy matching for name queries' and scope limitations (ID/name vs. conceptual), but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, response format, or error handling. For a search tool with no annotations, this is adequate but has gaps.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by specific usage details and a clear alternative. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential guidance without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete for a search tool. It covers purpose and usage guidelines well but lacks behavioral details like response format or error handling. For a 4-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage, it's adequate but could be more comprehensive.

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 fully documents all 4 parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying fuzzy matching applies to 'name' queries, but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 Disney entities by ID or name' with specific verbs ('search', 'uses fuzzy matching') and resources ('Disney entities'). It explicitly distinguishes from sibling 'discover' for conceptual queries, making the scope precise.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('by ID or name', 'fuzzy matching for name queries') and when not to ('For conceptual queries... use discover instead'), naming the alternative tool. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like 'discover' and implies usage contexts.

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