Look up a Hermai schema

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

The description repeats the read-only nature already declared in annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint) and provides no additional behavioral details such as search behavior, result limits, or authentication requirements. It does not contradict annotations.

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 extremely concise (12 words) and front-loaded with the core action. Every word is meaningful, and there is no redundancy or fluff.

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 low complexity (4 optional parameters, no output schema) and the presence of annotations, the description is largely adequate. However, it lacks details on the return format (e.g., single schema vs. list) and search matching behavior, which would improve completeness.

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?

All four parameters have clear descriptions in the schema (100% coverage). The description merely lists them without adding usage examples, constraints, or interactions, so it does not add significant value beyond the schema.

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 uses the specific verb 'Search' and lists the filtering dimensions (domain, task, category, verification state), making it clear what the tool does. It also notes it is read-only, distinguishing it from mutation siblings like submit_schema_request.

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 does not specify when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., list_public_schemas) and does not mention any prerequisites or limitations. It only states what it does, offering no guidance on selection context.

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