fact_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does a good job: it discloses default filtering of retired/rotten facts, the archive override, ranking order, and a special warning for boundary facts. It stops short of describing return structure or pagination, but the stated behaviors are genuinely informative.

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 terse and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence contributes meaningful information, and there is no filler. Minor ambiguity in 'boundary facts' and the lack of an explicit response overview keep it from a perfect score.

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 six parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the key behaviors but leaves gaps: 'boundary facts' is undefined, authorization requirements are vague, and the meaning of scope values is only partially addressed. It is workable but not fully complete for a standalone definition.

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 high (83%), so the baseline is 3. The description adds context for archive behavior and ranking, but most parameter semantics are already present in the schema. It does not explain limit defaults or query matching semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 opens with 'Search stored facts,' clearly identifying a specific verb and resource. It also adds scope details like archive filtering and ranking, which help distinguish it from reading a single fact or proposing a new fact, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools.

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 implies the tool is used when searching facts, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer fact_search over fact_read or other siblings. It mentions 'Authorization required' as a prerequisite but gives no exclusions or alternative-selection cues.

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