search_sessions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('Search') and scope, but does not describe whether results are partial or complete, how keywords are matched, whether pagination exists, or any side effects. As a read-only search, 'Search' implies non-mutation, but details are absent, leaving significant behavioral ambiguity.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant information. It conveys the action, target, and scope efficiently, earning a top score for conciseness and structure.

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 is relatively simple with two fully documented parameters and no output schema. However, the description does not indicate what the search returns (e.g., a list of sessions) or include any usage caveats. Given no annotations and no output schema, the completeness is adequate but has gaps around return format and behavioral expectations beyond the core search action.

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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage for both parameters (query and status), but the description adds semantic value by specifying that the query is about 'topic or goal keywords', which is more nuanced than the schema's generic 'Search keywords'. This helps the agent understand the intended use of the query parameter beyond its simple type definition.

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 'Search Harmonica sessions by topic or goal keywords', identifying a specific verb (Search), resource (sessions), and search scope (topic/goal keywords). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_sessions (likely lists all sessions) and get_session (fetches a specific session), making the purpose unmistakable.

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 phrase 'by topic or goal keywords' clarifies when to use this tool: when you need to find sessions based on thematic or goal-oriented keywords. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the contextual guidance is clear enough for the agent to decide between searching and listing/fetching sessions.

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