search_operations

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one meaningful trait: this is a local-cache-only search that will not go to the network. However, it says nothing about read-only semantics explicitly, pagination behavior, result limits, or what happens on a cache miss.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the scoping constraint front-loaded. Every clause earns its place.

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 6-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin: it omits result format, how parameters interact, and the stale-cache scenario an agent will hit in practice.

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 only 33%, so half the parameters (keyword, tag, limit, service) are undocumented in both schema and description. The description adds no meaning about how keyword/tag/method combine or how limit applies, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 states a specific verb and resource - 'Search operations' - and scopes it to the local cached document. It doesn't name sibling tools like get_operation or refresh_service explicitly, but the 'local cached' qualifier implicitly separates it from the refresh tools that fetch remote data.

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 claim that it never fetches remote Swagger implies the agent should use a refresh tool if the cache is stale, but this is left to inference rather than stated. There is no explicit when-to-use or alternatives guidance relative to get_operation or the service-management tools.

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