search

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

The description adds useful details beyond the read-only and non-destructive annotations, such as the cost per page and the output structure (rows with id, title, url, and id being a Solana mint for fetch). However, it does not mention potential errors, rate limits, or other side effects, so it only partially exceeds what annotations already convey.

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 verbose and includes redundant or confusing phrases such as 'ChatGPT entry point' and 'ChatGPT connects to nothing without this exact name'. The structure is somewhat disjointed, with multiple clauses in the first sentence and an awkward second sentence, detracting from clarity and conciseness.

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 description provides essential output context by specifying the return format (rows with id, title, url) and the relationship of id to fetch, which is helpful in the absence of an output schema. However, it lacks details about pagination, edge cases, or error handling, leaving some gaps for an agent relying solely on this description.

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 schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters (query and limit), and the tool description does not add any additional parameter-specific information. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline 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 states that this tool performs the same catalogue search as search_tokens and returns rows with id, title, and url, making its purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly use a verb like 'searches', and the phrase 'ChatGPT entry point' adds ambiguity, though the core action is still understandable.

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 explicitly tells ChatGPT to use this tool and directs other clients to call search_tokens instead, providing clear guidance on when to use this tool versus the alternative. It also notes that this is an alias with the same endpoint and price, leaving no room for confusion.

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