lax_search_agents

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it usefully discloses that this is a free, unauthenticated read operation. However, it says nothing about rate limits, pagination, empty-result behavior, or what an offer record looks like.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action, no filler. It is efficient, though the second sentence addresses billing rather than the more consequential query semantics.

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 simple one-parameter search with no output schema and no annotations, the description must still convey what is returned and how matching works; it covers neither. An agent cannot predict results or craft a query without trial and error.

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 single `query` parameter has 0% schema description coverage and the description does not explain its semantics: is it full-text, a substring match over agent name, a filter over offer fields, or an empty-permitted browse? With 0 required params, the description should clarify what an absent query returns.

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 names a verb and resource ("Search public LAX agent offers"), but the tool name says it searches agents while the text says it searches offers, leaving ambiguity about what entity is actually queried. It also doesn't distinguish this from siblings like lax_list_jobs or lax_get_offer.

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?

"Reads are free; no key is needed" sets a constraint but gives no when-to-use guidance or routing to alternatives such as lax_get_offer or lax_list_jobs. The agent has to infer that this is the discovery/entry point.

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