search_design

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication needs, rate limits, or whether it mutates data. It is likely a read operation, but this is not explicit.

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 very concise, front-loaded with the purpose, and includes a relevant example. It efficiently conveys essential information with minimal words.

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 simple tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and example. However, it ambiguously mentions design classification, application status, and drawing images without clarifying if they are filters or outputs, leaving some gaps.

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 already documents all three parameters adequately. The description adds an example keyword but does not provide additional semantic value beyond what the schema offers.

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 for designs by product name keyword, mentioning additional facets like design classification, application status, and drawing images. It distinguishes from sibling tools that target patents or trademarks.

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 usage for design search by product name and gives an example, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like search_patents or search_trademark. No when-not or exclusion guidance is provided.

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