search_errors

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

Annotations already disclose readOnly/idempotent/destructive traits. The description adds behavioral depth by explaining the fuzzy matching behavior and the 'across all domains' scope, which is not inferable from annotations or schema alone. It does not go into details about result ordering or pagination, but that's acceptable given the safety 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 two sentences, with the primary purpose front-loaded. It provides the key differentiator and usage guidance without any filler or redundancy. Every sentence 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?

For a search tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers what it does, when to use it, and how it contrasts with similar tools. It doesn't explicitly describe the return format or pagination, but the limit parameter and the use case imply a list of errors. Given the annotations and schema richness, the description is sufficiently complete.

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 input schema already has 100% coverage with detailed parameter descriptions (e.g., 'query' mentions examples, 'limit' notes default, 'domain' explains optional filtering). The description reinforces these but does not add new meaning beyond the schema; it focuses on usage context rather than parameter specifics.

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 'Search errors by keyword across all domains', specifying the action, resource, and scope. It explicitly distinguishes itself from 'lookup_error' by contrasting fuzzy keyword search with regex matching, which separates it from a sibling tool.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'Use when you have a vague description like ‘memory issues’ or ‘permission denied’ rather than an exact error message.' It also contrasts with lookup_error, giving a clear alternative and the distinguishing heuristic.

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