exa-search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, repeatable read operation. The description adds value by mentioning 'highest quality and freshest context' and the programming domain focus, but doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or response format details beyond what annotations provide.

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 appropriately sized with three sentences that each serve a purpose: stating the tool's purpose, highlighting quality/freshness, and providing usage rules. It's front-loaded with the core function, though the mandatory rule could be more concise.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, domain, quality claims, and usage rules. With annotations handling safety profiles and schema covering parameters, the main gap is lack of output format explanation, but this is acceptable since no output schema exists.

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 fully documents both parameters (query and tokensNum) with descriptions and examples. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score of 3 since the schema carries the full burden.

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 purpose: 'Search and get relevant context for any programming task' with specific resources mentioned ('libraries, SDKs, and APIs'). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'web_search_exa' by specifying programming-related queries, though it doesn't explicitly contrast their differences beyond domain focus.

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 provides explicit usage guidelines: 'Use this tool for ANY question or task related to programming' and includes a mandatory rule: 'when the user's query contains exa-code or anything related to code, you MUST use this tool.' This gives clear when-to-use instructions, though it doesn't specify when NOT to use it or alternatives beyond the sibling tool.

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