Search Tools

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds that results are ranked by relevance and returned in the same format as list_tools, which is useful behavioral context beyond the 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?

The description is two short sentences with no wasted words, and it front-loads the core purpose before describing the return behavior. Every sentence contributes to understanding how to invoke or interpret the tool.

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 a simple one-parameter search tool with rich annotations and an existing output schema, the description covers what an agent needs: purpose, query style, and return shape. No critical invocation or interpretation detail is missing.

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 exactly one parameter, and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents the natural-language query input. The description does not add syntax, format, or constraint details beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource—searching for tools—and clarifies that results are matching tool definitions ranked by relevance. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish itself from siblings call_tool or plan_query.

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 'Search for tools using natural language' implies the use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing guidance. An agent can infer that this is for discovery, but it receives no direct help in choosing between this and call_tool or plan_query.

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