search_concepts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds the 'ranked summaries' output nature, which is genuinely useful context. It does not, however, disclose pagination, the temporal significance of the asOf parameter, or result-shape variation across the detail enum — modest gaps that annotations do not cover.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the imperative verb 'Search,' that packs the verb, resource, output nature, and filter modes with zero filler words. Nothing is wasted and nothing is repeated from the 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 tool with 23 parameters and semantics like temporal asOf, freshness states, trust tiers, and frontmatter object filters, a one-line description is thin on orienting context. However, the schema fully documents every parameter and the annotations cover the safety profile, so the agent can still invoke it correctly. 'Ranked summaries' hints at output, and no output schema exists to carry the return contract.

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% — all 23 parameters carry their own descriptions in the schema, including the detail enum, offset/limit ranges, and filter semantics. The description adds zero parameter-level detail beyond the schema, which is the correct baseline (3) for a fully self-documenting schema.

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 names a specific verb ('Search'), a resource ('OKF concepts'), and an output shape ('return ranked summaries'), with the scope delimited by 'using text and structured filters.' This clearly distinguishes a search-and-filter operation from the sibling list_concepts (pure enumeration) and get_concept (single retrieval). It loses a point only because it never names or explicitly contrasts those siblings.

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 phrase 'using text and structured filters' implies this is the go-to tool when free-text or structured filtering is needed, in contrast to the listing siblings. However, with four list/search-adjacent sibling tools (list_concepts, get_concept, get_neighbors, find_paths), there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this tool over those, nor any exclusion or prerequisite guidance.

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