search_figures

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two search modalities (OCR vs semantic), which is genuinely useful behavioral context. It says nothing about result limits, ranking, permissions, or that the operation is read-only, so key operational traits remain undisclosed.

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 sentence is front-loaded and the args block is compact. The 'Args:' formatting is slightly redundant with the schema, but the example values earn their 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and with a single parameter the description covers the calling surface adequately. What is missing is only the routing distinction between this tool and the other search_* siblings.

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% and there is a single required parameter, so the description must carry the load; it does so with concrete example values ('UMAP', 'TYRP1', 'cluster', 'p < 0.001'). It still doesn't say how a query is routed between OCR and semantic matching, which is the one semantic detail an agent would want.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search figures') plus the corpus scope ('across all saved articles') and two matching modes (OCR text, semantic description). It does not, however, distinguish itself from near siblings such as search_snippets, search_articles, or read_figure, so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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?

Usage is only implied by the scope phrase 'across all saved articles'; there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or statement of when to prefer read_figure/annotate_figure or the other search_* tools. The agent can guess the intent but receives no routing rules.

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