search_standards

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool 'returns relevant excerpts with context' and includes an example, but fails to describe critical behaviors such as search algorithm details, pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or error handling. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it operates.

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 well-structured with a purpose statement, parameter explanations, return value note, and example. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core functionality. The example is helpful but could be slightly more concise; overall, most sentences earn their place without significant waste.

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 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description does a decent job explaining parameters and purpose. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like search scope, result formatting, or error conditions. The presence of an output schema helps, but the description doesn't fully compensate for the missing behavioral context, making it adequate but with clear gaps.

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 compensate. It provides clear semantics for all three parameters: 'query' as search keywords/phrases, 'category' as an optional filter with specific values (agents, mcp, infrastructure), and 'max_results' with its default. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't detail format constraints or advanced query 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 clearly states the tool performs a 'full-text search across all standards documents and returns relevant excerpts with context', which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_standards_summary' or 'list_standards_categories' by focusing on search functionality rather than listing or summarizing. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'validate_*' tools, which serve different purposes.

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 standards documents, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_standards_summary' or 'list_standards_categories'. It mentions optional parameters like 'category' filtering, which hints at context, but lacks clear when/when-not statements or named alternatives for different search scenarios.

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