Search Corpus

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds significant context beyond annotations: it specifies the tool does not query the database or network, and it describes the return format (ranked hits with id, score, title). This enhances transparency.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no filler. Every sentence adds value: purpose, usage guidance, and behavioral details. Highly efficient.

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 an output schema, the description covers all necessary context: experimental nature, read-only, idempotent, no DB/network, return fields. With annotations providing safety guarantees, this is complete.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds minimal parameter meaning beyond the schema. It mentions the query is tokenized into alphanumeric terms, which is already in the schema. Baseline 3 is 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 clearly states the tool searches a built-in sample FOI document corpus using an experimental in-memory index. It distinguishes itself from related tools like list_requests/retrieve_request by specifying it's for full-text search over sample data, not real database queries.

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 explicitly provides guidance: 'Use for experimental full-text search over sample titles/bodies; prefer list_requests/retrieve_request for real local SQLite requests.' This tells the agent when to use this tool and when to use alternatives.

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