search_work

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds the specific searchable fields (app name, label, category, description), which is useful context, but it does not disclose any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, result limitations, or pagination. For a simple search tool, this is adequate but not rich.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundancy. Every word contributes to explaining the tool's purpose and scope, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool's simplicity (two params, no output schema) and the existing schema/descriptions, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose and searchable fields, though it could mention what the return output looks like. Overall, it is sufficient for the complexity.

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% for both parameters (query and days). The description adds value beyond the schema by specifying the fields the query term matches, which the schema's 'Search term' description does not convey.

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 a specific action (Search) on a specific resource (Daylens work history) with the exact fields to search by (app name, label, category, description). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_timeline and get_recent_activity, which are not search-based.

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 implies usage (use when you need to search work history by keywords) but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or when not to use it. There are no exclusion scenarios or sibling tool comparisons, so guidance is only implied.

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