nara_search

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

Annotations already include readOnlyHint=true, so the description appropriately adds context beyond that by mentioning the rate limit (10,000 queries/month) and what the return includes (record metadata, titles, descriptions, dates, links). This is useful behavioral context without contradicting the annotations.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, return value, and a critical constraint (rate limit). It is front-loaded with the primary verb and resource, and contains no fluff.

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 search tool without an output schema, the description covers what the tool does, what it returns, and a practical limitation. It doesn't mention pagination details, but the schema documents offset/limit, so the description is adequately complete. The sibling nara_record is not referenced, but isn't required.

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 parameters query, limit, and offset are already documented. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, earning the baseline score.

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 a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('National Archives catalog'), and lists the types of content (historical records, documents, photographs, government publications). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool nara_record by describing a search operation rather than a record detail lookup.

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 the catalog and notes a rate limit, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like nara_record, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. The context is clear but relies on inference.

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