search_public_protocols

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: results sorted by popularity, pagination with 3 per page, default page=1, and the page parameter to navigate. This goes beyond what input schema provides.

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 concise and front-loaded: first sentence states core purpose and key behaviors, second paragraph adds detailed usage guidelines. Every sentence adds value; no duplication 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 presence of an output schema, the description covers all needed context: purpose, behavioral details (sorting, pagination), and post-search actions. It is fully complete for an AI agent to select and use the tool correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond schema (e.g., keyword is search term, page is for pagination with default), but does not significantly enhance understanding of parameter values or constraints.

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 for public protocols') and the resource ('protocols.io') with a specific scope ('public'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_protocol or get_my_protocols by specifying public search.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: for creating a new protocol, avoid pre-2015 protocols, ask for clearer direction if topics are not closely related, and if highly relevant, use get_protocol_steps to examine at least 2 protocols. This clearly differentiates from alternatives.

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