search_circles

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

Annotations already mark this as readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations by specifying the exact return shape, including the userType mapping (1=user, 2=group, 4=mail, 8=contact, 16=circle). This helps an agent interpret results correctly.

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 compact and well-structured, with a one-sentence summary followed by clearly labeled Args and Returns sections. Every line earns its place: purpose, parameter meaning, and return semantics. There is no filler or repetition of the annotations.

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 read-only search tool with one required parameter and a clear return description, this is complete. The annotations cover the safety profile, the parameter is fully explained, and the return format is documented with sufficient detail. An agent has everything needed to invoke the tool correctly for a search query.

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?

The input schema only defines term as a required string with no description, and schema coverage is 0%. The description compensates by explaining that term is a 'Search phrase. Matches against names/ids.' This gives the parameter real semantic meaning, though it could go further by noting acceptable lengths, wildcard behavior, or case sensitivity.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search for circles and potential members (users, groups, emails) by term.' This makes the tool's purpose immediately clear and distinguishes it from listing tools like list_circles or list_circle_members, since it searches across multiple entity types rather than enumerating a single collection.

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 through 'Search for circles and potential members by term' and states what the term matches ('names/ids'), but it never explicitly says when to choose this tool over alternatives such as unified_search, list_circles, or get_circle. There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, so the selection context is left to inference.

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