search_definitions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return format ('matching definitions with their full text and any alternate terms'), which is helpful, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or pagination. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and output. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and avoids unnecessary details, making it highly concise and easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and return format but lacks details on usage context, parameter behavior, and operational constraints. Without annotations or output schema, more completeness is needed for a higher score.

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 50% (only the 'term' parameter has a description). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain search behavior (e.g., exact match, partial match, case sensitivity) or the 'limit' parameter's effect. With moderate schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description doesn't compensate for gaps.

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 tool's purpose: 'Search FedRAMP definitions (FRD document) by term.' It specifies the verb ('search'), resource ('FedRAMP definitions'), and scope ('FRD document'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_markdown' or 'grep_controls_in_markdown', which limits it to a 4 rather than a 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'search_markdown' or 'grep_controls_in_markdown', nor does it specify prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual usage. This lack of comparative guidance results in a low score.

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