search_cases

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It explains that it returns a list of cases with numbers and metadata, and includes pagination parameters (rows, start), which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state that it is read-only, nor does it mention authentication requirements, error behavior, or whether results are sorted. This is minimal but sufficient for a basic search tool, earning a 3.

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: a one-sentence summary followed by an Args block and a Returns line. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every item adds value. The only minor redundancy is the Returns line restating what the initial sentence implies, but it is not wasteful. Overall, it is concise and easy to scan.

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?

The tool is relatively simple (3 params, no output schema, no annotations). The description covers the essential purpose, parameters, and return type. However, it omits edge cases like empty results, maximum pagination bounds, or any error conditions. For an agent to use it effectively, a bit more detail on return structure and limitations would be helpful. This is adequate but not complete, hence a 3.

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 does provide a one-line explanation for each parameter: 'query' as a search query string, 'rows' as number of results, and 'start' as pagination index. These are clear but somewhat generic (e.g., 'query' just restates its type). The descriptions help an agent use the params correctly, but lack depth or examples, so a score 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 opens with 'Search for Red Hat cases and return a list of case numbers,' which clearly states the verb (search) and resource (Red Hat cases). The mention of returning case numbers distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_case or get_case_raw, which likely fetch a single case. This meets the 5-level bar of specific verb+resource and sibling differentiation.

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 vs alternatives such as get_case or search_kcs. The description simply explains what it does, without stating situations where it should be preferred or avoided. There is no mention of 'use this for searching a list of cases, use get_case for a specific case.' This lack of direction warrants a score of 2.

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