search_operating_systems

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a JSON string of matching operating systems and clarifies the limit behavior, but it does not describe matching semantics (e.g., exact vs. substring, case sensitivity) or error handling. This is minimal but acceptable for a simple search tool.

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 concise and well-structured: a front-loaded purpose sentence, a compact Args block, and a Returns line. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff.

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 two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the required input and the general return shape. The main gap is not explicitly routing to list_operating_systems for unfiltered browsing, but this is a minor omission given the tool's low 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It defines query as a search query string and states that limit controls the maximum number of results with a default of 10 and max of 100, adding meaningful semantics beyond the schema's type/title/default.

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 states a specific verb (Search), a resource (operating systems), and the search scope (by name), which clearly conveys what the tool does. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling list_operating_systems, so it stops short of a 5.

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 'by name' implies this is for finding specific operating systems rather than listing all, and the sibling list_operating_systems suggests the alternative. However, the description never explicitly says when to use this tool versus the list sibling or any other search tool.

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