search_founders

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether this is a read-only search, what scope it searches (episodes? full archive?), how results are ordered, or what side effects exist. An output schema covers return shape, but operation semantics remain undocumented.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, and the primary purpose is front-loaded before the workflow note. Every sentence earns its place; there is no redundancy with the schema or siblings.

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?

An output schema exists, which relieves the description of explaining return values, and sibling names provide context. However, with 0% parameter documentation, no annotations, and a domain-specific parameter like episode_number left unexplained, the description is not complete enough for an agent to call this tool correctly in all intended cases.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, yet it says nothing about any of the three parameters. Required 'query' is not qualified (format, reframing strategy), and 'episode_number' — which clearly scopes the search to a single episode — is never mentioned, leaving agents to guess its semantics from the bare schema.

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 gives a clear verb ('Find') and resource ('cited evidence') tied to a strategic-question context, so an agent understands the core purpose. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling 'get_founders_passage', which plausibly also returns passages/evidence, leaving the boundary between the two tools implicit.

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 phrase 'Run reframed and conflicting-view searches before synthesizing' gives workflow-ordering guidance (use it before synthesis) but says nothing about when to prefer this tool over its siblings, nor when not to use it. No alternatives are named and no conditions select one tool over another.

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