search_names

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

Annotations cover readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is addressed. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: results are ambiguous, headings can match hundreds of unrelated families, and a SNAC record is a machine-built authority record rather than an identification. It does not discuss result paging behavior, but the ambiguity warning is substantive value.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by the caveat that justifies it. The prose is slightly discursive with the quoted example and a rather long closing clause, but every sentence carries information and nothing is redundant.

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 search tool with no output schema and a fully documented input schema, the description supplies the crucial missing context: that results are ambiguous authority records and must be validated via get_name with linked collections, places and dates. It could say a bit more about what a result row contains, but the interpretive warning is the main need and is covered.

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 all six parameters already carry descriptions. The description only echoes the heading-input convention ('Anderson family') that the schema's name property already documents, adding no syntax or format meaning beyond the structured fields. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Find SNAC name records') and immediately scopes it to person, family or organisation. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling get_name by naming it as the narrowing step, so an agent can route correctly without opening either schema.

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?

Gives clear context for use (discovery of name records) and names the alternative workflow (narrow with get_name before treating any record as your family). It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use guidance or pointing at search_collections as the contrasting entry point, so it is strong but not complete.

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