search_commitments

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. The description doesn't reveal whether this is a read-only operation (likely but unstated), what the return format is, whether partial matches or fuzzy matching are used, or any pagination/bounding behavior. For a search tool, this leaves important behavioral questions unanswered.

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?

A single-sentence description that is efficient and front-loaded with the essential verb and resource. No wasted words, appropriate length for the tool's simplicity.

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 tool has only 2 parameters (both documented), an output schema, and relatively simple semantics. The description covers the search scope adequately. However, without annotations and given it's a search tool among many siblings, a bit more context about scope (does it search across all users' commitments?) would improve completeness.

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% (both query and limit have descriptions). The description adds that the query searches title, description, or original text, which supplements the schema. However, it doesn't clarify what 'original text' means or how limit interacts with default behavior, so value beyond schema is modest.

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 verb (search) and resource (commitments), and specifies the searchable fields (title, description, or original text). It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling search_delegations, but the resource is clearly identified, so purpose is clear enough.

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 implies when to use it (when searching commitments by text) but doesn't provide explicit when-not guidance or alternatives. Siblings like get_all_commitments, search_delegations, and search_decisions exist, so some differentiation could help, but the purpose is reasonably self-evident.

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