repository_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but offers minimal information. It doesn't describe what type of search is performed (full-text, metadata, etc.), whether results are paginated, what format documents are returned in, or any authentication requirements. The description merely states the basic function without operational details.

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 extremely concise at just 6 words, front-loading the core functionality with zero wasted language. Every word earns its place by communicating the essential purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

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 tool's purpose (searching a repository), the absence of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what constitutes a 'document' in this context, what search capabilities exist, or what results look like. For a search tool with no structured behavioral information, more context is needed about the search behavior and results format.

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 schema has 100% description coverage with the single 'query' parameter documented as 'Search query'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 for documents') and target resource ('in the DeSo repository'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'read_repository_document', which suggests potential overlap in functionality without explicit differentiation.

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. With a sibling tool named 'read_repository_document' that likely serves a related purpose, there's no indication of when search is appropriate versus direct document reading, nor any mention of prerequisites or constraints for using this search functionality.

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