list_search_pathways

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

No annotations provided, so description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states what it returns, does not mention that it is read-only, idempotent, or any authentication/rate-limit considerations. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Single sentence, no superfluous words. Front-loaded with the verb and resource, achieving maximum conciseness.

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?

Has an output schema, so return values need not be detailed. Description is sufficient for a simple listing tool, though it could mention that the pathways are inputs to other search tools for better completeness.

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?

No parameters (0 params), so baseline is 4. Description does not need to explain parameters, and it appropriately adds no parameter-related clutter.

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?

Clearly states it returns supported search pathways and required field hints. Verb 'Return' and resource 'search pathways' are specific. Does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_case_search_context or search_providers, but the purpose is distinct enough.

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?

Implied usage: use when needing to know available search pathways before performing a search. No explicit when-not or alternative tools mentioned, leaving the agent to infer timing.

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