search_infrastructure

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the description doesn't need to cover safety. It adds useful behavioral details such as searching across all DDI domains, grouping results by type, and the limit per type. This goes beyond what annotations provide, though it doesn't elaborate on openWorldHint implications or potential rate limits, so 4 is appropriate.

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 well-structured with a clear summary line, usage guidance, args list, return description, and examples. Every section adds value and there is no filler. It is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 multiple optional parameters and an output schema, the description covers purpose, parameters, return format, and usage examples. It provides enough context for an agent to select and invoke it correctly without needing additional information.

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 has zero descriptions, but the description fully explains each parameter. query is clarified as a search term with examples (IP, hostname, domain, comment). types is described as optional and defaults to all types. limit is given a default and maximum. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 tool's function: 'Find resources by keyword across all DDI domains' and specifies the types of searchable values (IP, hostname, domain, comment). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming alternatives like explore_network and get_network_summary.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'USE THIS when looking for something specific by name or address.' It also gives direct alternative recommendations: 'For hierarchy browsing use explore_network(). For dashboards use get_network_summary().' This leaves no ambiguity about when to use this tool.

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