Search tools

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

The annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false), so the description's burden is lighter. It nonetheless adds real behavioral detail: results are ordered best match first, each result carries a name and short description, and input schemas are included only for the best few. Return-shape details are partly handled by the output schema, so this is not a 5.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the follow-up sentences each carry a distinct instruction (ranking, schemas, describe_tool, multi-query). The final sentence is somewhat convoluted in phrasing ("one for a value the user did not give") but its content earns its place.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not enumerate return values, and it correctly refrains while still noting ranking order and partial schema inclusion. Annotations cover the safety profile and the schema covers all four parameters, so an agent has what it needs. The multi-query behavior could be slightly clearer about how results are grouped per query, which keeps this from a 5.

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%, and the schema already documents limit, query, queries, and schemas including their defaults, so the baseline is satisfied by the schema. The description adds the useful nuance that queries exists to answer several needs simultaneously (with an example) rather than merely being an array form of query. That is incremental value but not enough to exceed the schema-driven baseline by much.

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 uses a specific verb+resource ("Find the tools that can do what you describe") and scopes it to "all the tools you may use." It distinguishes itself from the sibling describe_tool by stating that schemas are returned only for the best few and that others require describe_tool, so an agent can separate this discovery tool from the invocation tools without opening any schema.

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?

It gives a clear conditional: use queries instead of query when several things must be found at once, with a concrete example (a tool for the task plus one for a missing value). It also routes the agent onward to describe_tool for tools outside the returned best few. There is no explicit statement of when not to use this tool, so it falls short of the top score.

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