search_terms

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds real value by disclosing the index eligibility threshold and the shape of each hit (A-number, name, keywords, offset, `at`, `n`). It omits ordering of results for the default mode and any note on `limit`/pagination, so there are remaining behavioral gaps.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then per-parameter notes in a compact block with no filler. The formatting is slightly cramped and the parenthetical about "tinier queries are too generic to index" is a touch verbose, but every line carries information.

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?

Because there is no output schema, describing the hit fields is essential and is done well. For a 5-parameter search tool the only meaningful omission is `limit` and result ordering; otherwise an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage the description must compensate, and it does for terms (comma-separated format with an example and minimum-length rule), ext (DATA plus b-files), sub (maximal common runs) and min_run. Only `limit` is left completely undefined, leaving one of five parameters undocumented.

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?

"Find sequences containing the given terms consecutively, like the OEIS search box" gives a specific verb and resource plus an intuitive analogy. It implicitly separates itself from text search (this matches terms, not text), but never names search_text or search_terms_batch as alternatives, so sibling differentiation is only partial.

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?

It states a concrete eligibility rule (at least 4 consecutive terms with |term| >= 10) and explains the two modes with their appropriate situations, e.g. sub is "useful when the query has a wrong term or a different start." It does not say when to prefer search_text, search_terms_batch, or get_entry instead.

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