Search Functions

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile, and the description adds context that this searches a compiled registry rather than returning full schemas. No contradiction with annotations; the added behavioral insight is modest but useful.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase contributes meaning, and the key workflow instruction is placed prominently.

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 readOnlyHint, fully documented parameters, and presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential workflow context: search first, then fetch full schemas. It is terse but sufficient for correct 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%, so the schema already fully documents both query and limit. The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond framing the search as a registry lookup.

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 states a specific action, 'Search the compiled registry,' and clarifies its role as a precursor to requesting full function schemas. It strongly implies a distinction from get_functions, though it does not explicitly name the sibling.

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 provides clear sequencing guidance: use this tool before requesting full function schemas. It does not explicitly list when not to use it or name alternatives, but the intended workflow is evident.

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