search_field_protocols

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully signals that results come from a curated ground-truth corpus rather than a generic index, and 'searches' implies a non-destructive read. It says nothing about result count, ranking, citation format, or whether empty results are possible, which leaves real gaps for a no-annotation tool.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and target, with no filler. Every clause contributes either scope (the corpus) or content coverage (procedures, criteria, formulas).

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 single-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what the tool searches and, in effect, what kind of content comes back. The remaining gap is operational detail about result shape and limits, which is minor given the tool's simplicity.

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?

There is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage, and the schema already supplies concrete query examples ('NVL72 manifold', 'MOP switching'). The description adds no further guidance on query formulation or phrasing, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb (searches) and a named resource (the Data Center Field Guides ground-truth corpus), plus the content types it returns (commissioning procedures, fatal flaw criteria, engineering formulas). That is enough to separate it from the compute/lookup siblings like calculate_pipe_friction_loss or lookup_defect_code, though it never explicitly names those alternatives.

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 intent to retrieve source-corpus material is implied by 'ground-truth corpus,' but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no routing between this and sibling tools. An agent must infer that this is the fallback for open-ended topical retrieval rather than a targeted computation.

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