Search keys

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: incomplete keys are flagged with the 'in' marker, and values are hidden unless includeValues is set. Return-shape specifics like ordering or pagination are still absent.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core search semantics before the optional refinements. Every sentence carries information; no filler or restated boilerplate.

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 nine-parameter, read-only search tool with no output schema, the description covers the search mode, prefix narrowing, the 'in' incompleteness marker, and value inclusion. It is complete enough to call correctly, with only minor gaps around result ordering and default locale behavior that the schema largely covers.

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 78%, so the schema already documents most of the nine parameters (limit, query, locales, searchIn, keyPrefix, includeValues). The description reinforces query/keyPrefix/includeValues and the default case-insensitivity but adds little syntax or format detail beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Find keys by substring of the key or the translated text') plus scope ('optionally under a key prefix'). An agent can distinguish it from i18n_file_keys or i18n_get_translations, though no sibling is named explicitly, so it stops short of 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 explains how to widen output ('Add includeValues to see the text') but never says when to reach for this tool versus i18n_get_translations, i18n_file_keys, or i18n_key_references. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative routing are given.

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