Search

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered and the bar is lower. However, the description adds nothing behavioral: it doesn't indicate what corpus is searched, how results are ordered, or that pagination exists. OpenWorld suggests non-exhaustive external results, which the description never reinforces.

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 sentence is short with no filler, but its brevity comes from under-specification rather than efficient communication. Nothing is front-loaded because there is essentially nothing to front-load.

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 nested-filter, open-world search tool with no output schema and many competing siblings, the description omits everything an agent needs: what entities are searched, result shape, and ordering. Annotations only cover the safety profile.

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% and the nested query object documents every filter (status, seriesIds, marketType, time bounds, comboEnabledOnly). The description adds no meaning beyond that, but per the high-coverage baseline a 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?

"Search for a given query" merely restates the tool name and the obvious parameter. It never says what resource is being searched (events, markets, series, tags?) in an API whose siblings include many concrete retrieval tools, so an agent cannot distinguish this from get_events, get_markets, or get_series.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing is given. With roughly 50 sibling retrieval tools, the absence of any statement like "use this for free-text matching across entities instead of the typed get_* endpoints" leaves selection to guesswork.

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