search_networking

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only lists example topics and does not describe search behavior, return format, rate limits, or any side effects. This is severely deficient.

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 a single sentence, which is concise but too brief. It lacks essential details and structure; it does not front-load key information like what it returns or how to refine queries. The conciseness comes at the expense of utility.

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 the complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations) and the presence of 17 sibling tools, the description is woefully incomplete. It fails to specify return values, search scope, or any operational context needed for correct invocation.

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 50% (only 'query' has a description). The description adds example topics for 'query' but does not explain the 'limit' parameter or how to use it effectively. It partially compensates but not enough for the missing schema descriptions.

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 it searches networking topics and provides specific examples (ownership, sync modes, late joiners, serialization). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling search tools like search_documentation or search_examples, though it could be more explicit about the scope.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus other search tools (e.g., search_documentation) or when not to use it. The description implies usage for networking topics but lacks explicit recommendations or exclusions.

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