search_referees_by_name

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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavior. It fails to mention search behavior (e.g., exact match vs. partial), pagination, or that optional parameters like 'include', 'select', and 'filters' modify results.

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 with no unnecessary words. However, it is too brief and lacks useful context, though it meets the conciseness criterion.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the tool's purpose relative to sibling tools (e.g., searching vs. listing all referees) or how optional parameters affect the query.

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% (all 7 parameters described in the schema). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, providing no hints on parameter usage or combinations. Baseline of 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 verb 'Search', the resource 'referees', and the method 'by name'. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_all_referees' (which retrieves all) and 'get_referee_by_id' (lookup by ID).

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_all_referees' or 'get_referee_by_id'. The description does not specify scenarios like name-based fuzzy search or filtering.

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