mf_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It only states a read operation (search) with example queries, but does not mention match semantics (exact, fuzzy, partial), pagination, default limit behavior, or whether results are sorted. It gives no context on the nature of the search results, leaving the agent to guess how 'search' behaves.

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 concise sentence with relevant examples, front-loaded with the core action and resource. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or verbose phrasing.

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 simple search tool with an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the primary parameter (query) but omits details on limit usage, match behavior, or result ordering. The presence of an output schema mitigates return-shape concerns, but the description still lacks enough behavioral context for an agent to fully anticipate tool behavior beyond 'returns matching funds'.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the 'query' parameter with examples and implies it expects a name or keyword. However, the 'limit' parameter is not described at all, and the description does not mention acceptable formats, case sensitivity, or whether the query is substring-based. Partial compensation only.

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 verb 'Search' and the resource 'mutual funds by name', with examples. It effectively distinguishes from siblings like mf_detail or mf_list by emphasizing name-based search, though it does not explicitly name any 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?

The description implies when to use it (when you want to find funds by name or category keywords) but does not explicitly contrast it with mf_list, mf_categories, or mf_featured. No alternative tools or exclusion conditions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate scenario.

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