apex_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions searching but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or what the search results look like (e.g., format, pagination). This is a significant gap for a search tool with no annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Search regulatory publications...') and includes relevant examples. Every word earns its place, with no wasted text or redundancy.

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 the complexity of a search tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., read-only nature, result format) and doesn't compensate for the absence of structured output information, making it inadequate for full agent understanding.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 5 parameters (query, topics, from, to, limit) with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how topics relate to European sources or default behaviors. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Search') and the resource ('regulatory publications and compliance updates from European sources'), with specific examples like RGPD and ISO27001. It distinguishes this as a search tool, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like apex_generate_brief or apex_list_topics, which might also involve regulatory content.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like apex_list_topics (which might list topics without searching) or apex_generate_brief (which might summarize content), leaving the agent to infer usage from tool names alone.

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