vrm_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'no JIT verification, fast' which hints at performance and validation behavior, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or what 'candidates' refers to in this context. More behavioral context is needed for a mutation or search tool.

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 extremely concise with a single sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every word earns its place, making it efficient and easy to parse without unnecessary details.

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?

Given the tool has 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't clarify what 'candidates' are, how results are returned, or provide enough context for effective use, especially compared to siblings like 'vrm_list' or 'vrm_retrieve.'

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 undocumented parameters. It doesn't explain what 'query' searches (e.g., names, skills), what 'limit' controls, or what 'includeExpired' means regarding candidates. This leaves key parameter meanings unclear beyond the schema's basic types.

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 action ('Search') and target resource ('candidates'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'vrm_list' (which might also list candidates), missing full differentiation.

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 context with 'no JIT verification, fast,' suggesting this is for quick searches without real-time validation. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'vrm_list' or 'vrm_retrieve,' leaving some ambiguity.

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