arvan_find_tool

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

The description implies a read-only search operation by stating 'search' and 'returns', yet annotations set readOnlyHint=false, contradicting the implication. This is a serious inconsistency.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no unnecessary words. Efficient and well-structured.

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 simple search tool with output schema (assumed present), the description covers core functionality, return format, and ranking. Minor missing parameter details are compensated by schema.

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 coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It mentions 'by keyword' which maps to query, but does not explain 'limit' or how it affects results. Missing crucial parameter info.

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 states verb 'search', resource 'this server's own tools', and context 'handy with 200+ tools', distinguishing it from sibling CRUD tools. It's a meta-tool for tool discovery.

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 use when there are many tools (200+), but does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives. Context is clear but lacks exclusions.

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