search_tools

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds meaningful context beyond them: the 'current proxy-visible' scoping constraint, the guarantee of 'exact tool names plus required and optional parameter names' output, and the single-call follow-up flow. It omits minor behavioral details like case-insensitivity or empty-result behavior, but with strong annotations the added context is well above baseline.

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 exactly two sentences with zero filler: the first states the action and scope, the second states the output shape and the intended next steps. Every clause earns its place, and it adds no redundancy with the title, schema, or annotations.

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 2-parameter search tool with a present output schema and comprehensive annotations, the description covers all material selection and invocation guidance: catalog scope (proxy-visible), match dimensions, result granularity, and follow-up flow. The output schema removes the need to document return values, and parameter syntax is fully covered by the schema, leaving no significant gap.

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%: the 'query' parameter is fully documented as matching names, categories, descriptions, and parameter names, and 'limit' documents its default (10) and maximum (50). The tool description reinforces the query semantics and return shape but adds no new per-parameter detail, matching the high-coverage baseline of 3.

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 specifies the verb 'Searches' with a precise resource ('Huly tool catalog') and search dimensions (tool name, category, description, parameter names). It distinguishes itself from siblings by describing the exact-name output and explicitly naming get_tool_schema/invoke_tool as follow-up destinations, clearly separating it from list_tool_categories and get_tool_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?

The description establishes clear context: it is the discovery entry point for the proxy-visible catalog, with explicit follow-up guidance to get_tool_schema or invoke_tool. However, it never states when not to use it or points to an alternative (e.g., going directly to get_tool_schema when the tool name is already known), so it has clear context but no exclusions.

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