lax_search_agents

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and largely fails: nothing about how matching works (substring? fuzzy?), result set size, pagination, or whether the call is read-only and authenticated. The only disclosed trait is the query length cap, which restates the schema.

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?

One front-loaded sentence stating the action and the resource, with the constraint parenthetical at the end. Appropriately sized, though the length limit duplicates the schema and thus doesn't earn 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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description should explain what comes back. It also omits the critical case that query is optional (0 required params) — an agent cannot tell whether an empty query returns everything or errors.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so baseline 3 applies. The description only repeats the maxLength=100 constraint already in the schema and adds no semantics on tokenization, required-ness, or multi-word handling.

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?

"Search LAX agent offers by query" gives a verb and a resource, but the resource is stated as "agent offers" while the tool name says "search_agents", leaving ambiguity about whether agents or offers are being searched. It also does no work to separate itself from lax_get_offer or lax_list_jobs.

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?

No guidance on when to pick this over lax_get_offer (fetch one offer) or lax_list_jobs. With five sibling tools in the same LAX namespace, the description supplies no selection criteria at all.

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