Content Search Tool

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint: true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results are paginated and depth-capped and that TV-based filtering/ordering is supported, which is genuine behavioral context. However it does not state defaults, maximum depth behavior, or ordering constraints, so the value added is modest.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the capabilities appear immediately after the verb+resource. It is efficiently worded, though brevity here overlaps with under-specification rather than being a defect of structure.

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 7-parameter tool with zero schema documentation and no output schema, the description is thin: it omits the 'parent' scoping parameter, default limit/offset behavior, ordering value formats, and the shape of returned results. An agent could call it, but would guess on most parameter semantics.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry meaning for all 7 parameters. It loosely maps categories: 'pagination' to limit/offset, 'depth caps' to depth, and 'structured TV filters/order' to order_by/order_dir/order_by_date, but leaves 'parent' unmentioned and gives no formats, allowed values for order_dir, or TV filter syntax.

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 gives a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('Evolution CMS content') and names distinguishing capabilities (pagination, depth caps, structured TV filters/order). It doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like evo.content.get or evo.content.children, but the 'search' framing is clear enough to separate it from fixed-relationship tools.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description implies a general query tool, but does not say when to prefer it over evo.content.children, evo.content.children_range, or evo.content.get, nor any prerequisites.

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