athena_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not indicate whether the operation is read-only, whether results are paginated (despite the 'limit' parameter), or what the response structure looks like. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity for a search tool.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It efficiently conveys the core action and resource. However, its brevity is borderline under-specification, so it does not earn a 5.

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 simple schema (2 params) but no annotations or output schema, the description should provide more context about return values and parameter semantics. It only states the basic purpose, leaving the agent without enough information to anticipate results or edge cases. The absence of any behavioral or result details makes this insufficient.

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 describes 'query' and 'limit' with types and constraints but no descriptions, and the schema coverage is 0%. The description only hints that 'query' is the semantic/canonical text but does not explicitly define it or explain 'limit' (e.g., max results, pagination). The description fails to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.

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 the action ('Search'), the resource ('canonical registry'), and the method ('by semantic/canonical text'). This goes beyond a tautology and gives enough specificity to distinguish it from many siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast with search-like alternatives.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as athena_resolve or athena_graph_path. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or preferred scenarios, leaving the agent without context for tool selection.

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