Search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful behavioral fact that results are IDs intended for follow-up via fetch, and that the search spans all datasources, but nothing about ranking, result limits, or failure behavior.

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 tight sentences with no filler; the search scope comes first and the return-type hint follows. Slightly terse for the sibling ambiguity it leaves unresolved, but structurally sound.

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 read-only search with an output schema present, the description is mostly sufficient — return shape need not be explained. The unresolved overlap with search_ontology is the main completeness gap for an agent choosing among 32 sibling tools.

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 coverage is 100% but the schema's own parameter description is merely 'Search query.' The tool description adds no syntax, matching behavior, or format detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies when the schema carries the burden and the description contributes nothing extra.

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 the ontology documents (Terms and tables) across all datasources'), which is clearer than the bare tool name 'search'. However, it does not distinguish this tool from the sibling 'search_ontology', which by name appears to do the same thing, leaving the agent to guess which to call.

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?

'Returns ids for fetch' implies a follow-up workflow, which is useful implied guidance. But there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus search_ontology, list_terms, or lookup_values, and no exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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