agent-search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds the useful behavioral context of the deprecation lifecycle and the fixed sectionType binding, which is extra information beyond the annotations and schema. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two sentences with zero filler: the first sentence states the purpose/equivalence, the second states the deprecation. The critical scoping fact is front-loaded and every word earns 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?

For a deprecated alias, the description adequately covers deprecation and equivalence to search. However, with no output schema, 7 undocumented parameters, and no return/behavior hints, an agent would still need to consult the search tool's definition before calling this one, which limits completeness.

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%, so the description bears the burden of explaining the 7 parameters, but it does not. The only parameter-related insight is that sectionType is fixed to 'agent' — a detail not even visible in the schema. The required 'query' parameter and the enums (algo, mode) remain completely unexplained.

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 identifies the tool as a shorthand for the search tool scoped to sectionType: 'agent', and distinguishes it from the generic search sibling. However, it relies on the reader knowing what search does, since it never states the underlying query/return behavior 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?

The deprecation note ('Deprecated; removal in 2.0.0') is an explicit when-not-to-use signal, and calling it a 'shorthand for search' implies the alternative route. It does not literally name 'use search instead', but the intent is unambiguous in context.

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