td_search_operators

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does so reasonably well by disclosing what fields are searched, that plain-language queries are expected, and that family optionally filters results. It does not mention limit behavior or output ordering, but the core search behavior is clearly characterized.

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?

Three sentences with the main purpose front-loaded, followed by concrete examples and the one optional filter. Every sentence contributes useful information with no filler.

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 simple search tool with an output schema, the description covers the key decisions: what to query, when to use it, and how to narrow by family. The only notable omission is `limit` semantics, which is minor given its default.

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?

Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description compensates by explaining query semantics through examples and enumerating valid family values (TOP, CHOP, SOP, DAT, MAT, COMP, POP). The `limit` parameter is not described, but its default and integer type reduce ambiguity.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Find TouchDesigner operators by what they do.' It further clarifies the search surface ('names, labels, summaries and full documentation'), making it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like td_search_parameters.

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 gives explicit usage context: 'Use this first' and supplies concrete plain-language query examples. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a full 5.

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