search

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

The description mentions 'ranked by similarity', which gives some insight into the behavior, but lacks details on case sensitivity, partial matching, or ranking algorithm. Since no annotations exist, the description carries full burden but is only moderately transparent.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no superfluous words, making it highly concise and efficient.

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 two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality adequately. It could mention the scope (entity names and aliases) and ranking, but doesn't need more details.

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 description adds meaning to the 'query' parameter by clarifying it searches entity names and aliases. The 'limit' parameter remains unexplained, but its purpose is fairly obvious. Given 0% schema coverage, the description provides partial compensation.

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 explicitly states 'Full-text search across entity names and aliases', which specifies the action (search) and the resource (entity names and aliases). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like 'connections' or 'entity_profile'.

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 searching entities by name, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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