Search health indicators

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

The description discloses that the search is precise ('precisely defined indicators') and returns all valid rate variants, which goes beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. It does not contradict the annotation, and adds behavioral nuance about the comprehensiveness of results. However, it does not elaborate on additional behaviors like pagination or how results are ordered, but with the annotation providing the read-only profile, this is adequate.

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, 11-word sentence that front-loads the action and purpose. It contains no filler or redundant information, and every word contributes to meaning. This is a model of concise writing.

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 has six parameters and an output schema, but the schema descriptions are comprehensive and the annotations supply the read-only safety context. The description covers the core purpose and a key behavioral quirk (exposing all rate variants), which is enough given the structured data. It could be slightly more explicit about how it fits into the workflow with observations, but overall it is complete.

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 input schema descriptions cover 100% of the parameters, providing detailed explanations for each field such as examples for query and source. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description's mention of 'valid rate variants' tangentially relates to the unit/geography filtering but does not clarify their syntax.

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 performs a search over health indicators, using the specific verb 'Search' and resource 'precisely defined indicators.' It also adds a unique characteristic ('expose all valid rate variants') that distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_observations, which fetch observation data. This makes the purpose unambiguous and well-scoped.

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 implies the tool is used for searching indicator definitions, but it does not explicitly contrast it with the sibling tools get_observations or get_latest_observation. There is no when-not-to-use guidance or alternative recommendations. The context is inferred from the verb 'Search' and the sibling names, but not explicitly stated.

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