Search Quotes

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses the matching logic (case-insensitive substring) and that the search spans quote text and tags, which is helpful. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only (though obvious for a search) or describe the return structure/pagination, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and then the matching detail. Every word earns its place; no fluff or repetition of the schema.

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 single-parameter search tool with no output schema and no nested objects, the description covers the essential aspects: search scope and matching semantics. It omits details like result ordering or pagination, but these are less critical for a search tool and can be reasonably inferred from the name and common expectations.

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?

The parameter schema provides a clear description (searches across quote text and all tags), achieving 100% schema coverage. The tool description adds extra semantics by specifying case-insensitive substring matching, which goes beyond the schema. This enriches the parameter understanding without redundancy.

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 a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('quotes'), and specifies the search dimensions (text, author/topic/language tags) and matching behavior (case-insensitive substring). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like list_quotes or random_quote, though the name and its search-centric wording imply the distinction.

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 when to use this tool (for targeted quote searching) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or viable alternatives. Siblings like list_quotes or random_quote are not mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name alone.

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