search_tools

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses several concrete behaviors: empty query lists categories, default 5 matches, and dual support for BM25 and regex searches. It does not explicitly state read-only status or output format, but for a search operation the disclosed behaviors provide meaningful transparency.

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 four short sentences with no filler: purpose, usage instruction, empty-query behavior, and default limit. The critical 'use this instead' guidance is front-loaded, and every sentence 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?

Given no output schema and four optional parameters, the description covers tool selection rationale, query modes, the follow-up action, and important default/empty-query behavior. It does not specify the return shape, but the detail parameter schema fills that gap. This is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly in most cases.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that query and regex are alternative search modes and by revealing that an empty query produces categories—information not present in the schema. It repeats the default limit, but the added empty-query behavior justifies a score above baseline.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair ('Search the Premiere tool catalog') and names two concrete query mechanisms (BM25 natural-language or regex). It clearly differentiates this from siblings like invoke_tool and get_tool_schema, and the reference to the 280-tool MCP list explains its role as a discovery tool.

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?

It explicitly instructs the agent to use this tool instead of expecting the full 280-tool MCP list, which is direct when-to-use guidance. It also tells the agent to follow up by calling invoke_tool, linking the search step to the execution step. While it doesn't enumerate exclusions in detail, the 'use this instead' phrasing is strong and actionable.

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