Discover Tools

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that the tool returns 'matching tools with descriptions,' which clarifies the output nature but does not go deeper into ranking or other search behavior.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and unencumbered by repetitive schema information. Every word provides value.

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 relatively simple keyword-search tool with comprehensive parameter descriptions, a complete annotations block, and an output schema present, the description conveys what the tool does and what it returns. There are no significant gaps that would hinder selection or invocation.

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 100%, with all three parameters individually documented, including examples for query and a default for limit. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter semantics, so it sits at the baseline for high-schema-coverage tools.

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 action: 'Search available tools by keyword' and the return behavior: 'Returns matching tools with descriptions.' This distinguishes it from siblings like describe_tool (specific tool details) and run_tool (execution) by emphasizing keyword-based discovery.

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 conveys when to use it (when you need to find tools by keyword) but offers no explicit exclusions or alternatives, such as 'use describe_tool for detailed info' or 'use suggest_next_tools for recommendations.' Usage is implied, not fully mapped against siblings.

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