search_code

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only lists sources and gives no information about result merging, per-provider behavior, rate limits, latency, failure modes, or the structure of returned results. It is not misleading but provides almost no behavioral guidance.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every element, including the provider list, contributes to defining the tool's scope and differentiating it from siblings.

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?

This is a complex multi-provider search tool with no annotations and no output schema. The description only states the search scope and does not explain what results look like, how the merged result set behaves, or how the cap and per-provider limits affect the agent. It is incomplete for safe and effective invocation.

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%, and the parameter descriptions already explain query, num_results, and max_total_results. The tool description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 a specific verb ('Search') with a clear resource scope: code repositories, packages, and developer resources. It further differentiates itself from siblings like search_github or search_web by listing a broad set of code/package-focused providers.

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 clear context by naming the exact domains it covers (code, packages, developer resources) and the providers it aggregates. It does not explicitly state exclusions or name alternatives, but the scope is specific enough for an agent to infer when this tool fits.

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