search_standards

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It transparently explains that results are locally indexed, ranking is based on meaningful query terms, provenance is returned, and an empty list has a specific meaning. It does not cover all behavioral details like pagination or threshold specifics, but it is notably more transparent than typical tool descriptions.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, and every phrase adds value: local indexing, ranking criterion, provenance, and empty-list semantics are all packed in efficiently. The core purpose is front-loaded.

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?

The description is strong for a search tool: it explains what is searched, how results are ranked, what provenance is returned, and how to interpret an empty result. It does not describe the filtering parameters or output shape, but the output schema exists and parameter names are mostly self-explanatory, so the description is reasonably complete.

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 for six parameters, but it only adds meaning around the query concept ('meaningful query terms'). It does not explain source, status, revision, document_id, or limit beyond what their names and schema defaults imply, leaving a significant semantic 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 states a specific action—ranking locally indexed CCSDS and ECSS passages—and clearly identifies the resource being searched. The mention of provenance and empty-list semantics further distinguishes it from the sibling fetch tools get_document and get_passage.

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 implies this tool is for searching/ranking standards passages, but it does not explicitly state when to use it instead of get_document or get_passage. There are no direct alternatives or exclusion conditions, so the usage context is only inferred rather than stated.

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