discover_search

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the internal API endpoint, parameter semantics, and return format, including that 'total may be an estimate for large indices'. It does not cover rate limits or error handling, but for a search tool, the level of detail is commendable.

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 efficiently structured: a one-line purpose, then bullet-pointed parameter details, and a clear return format specification. At ~200 words, every sentence adds value with no fluff. It is front-loaded with the primary use case.

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 8 parameters (1 required) and an output schema exists, the description is still comprehensive. It explains each parameter's purpose and format, the return structure, and a usage caveat (total may be estimate). No gaps remain for effective use by an AI agent.

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. It adds rich meaning for all 8 parameters: index as glob pattern, query as Lucene query_string with None meaning match all, time_from/to with examples, time_field default, size with recommendation, fields for restriction, and tenant as optional header. This goes well beyond the schema.

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 starts with 'Fetch documents like the Discover app', clearly stating the verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings (no other search-like tool) by specifying it uses the internal search API that Dashboards' Discover uses, making its purpose unique and clear.

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 provides explicit usage context: 'works even when the raw OpenSearch REST API is not exposed'. It advises to keep size small and use fields to avoid flooding the context. While it does not list when not to use or explicitly name alternatives, the provided guidance is sufficient for typical use.

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