search_failure_modes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral traits. The description only states it searches and returns results, but it does not explicitly disclose that this is a read-only operation with no side effects. For a search tool, this is generally safe, but the lack of explicit safety guarantees (e.g., 'read-only') reduces transparency. There is no mention of authentication, rate limits, or potential impacts.

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 extremely concise: two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states action and input, the second states output structure. It is front-loaded and 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential purpose and output. However, it omits details such as whether the search is case-insensitive, supports partial matches, or how ranking is determined. For a minimal viable description, it is adequate but not thorough.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, and the parameter 'symptom' has a detailed enum-like example in the schema itself. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond paraphrasing the schema's parameter description. Baseline is 3 for high coverage, and there is no extra value added.

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 verb ('Search'), the resource ('Fail Modes taxonomy'), the input ('by symptom text or keyword phrase'), and the output ('Returns ranked matches with id, name, category, and matched context'). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'get_failure_mode' (which likely retrieves a single item by ID) and 'list_categories'/'list_modes' (which provide lists without search).

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 usage for searching by symptoms or keywords, which is clear. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool (e.g., when to use 'get_failure_mode' instead) or provide alternatives among siblings. The context is implied but could be more explicit to guide the AI agent away from inappropriate use cases.

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