search_detections

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does it well: it discloses pagination ('20 per page'), date format expectations, empty-value behavior for filters, and explicit allowed enum values. Minor omissions like response ordering or max page count are acceptable given the output schema covers return shape.

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 front-loaded with a one-sentence purpose, then uses a clean Arg list that documents every parameter without redundancy. Each line earns its place and the structure makes the tool's behavior easy to scan.

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 9-parameter search tool with no annotations and no schema-level descriptions, the description covers everything needed to invoke it correctly: all parameters, their allowed values, defaults, date formats, and pagination behavior. The output schema handles return-value documentation, so no gap remains.

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 fully compensate, and it does. Every parameter is documented with meaningful semantics: date format, bounds, confidence range, enumerated allowed values, 1-based page numbering, and sort options. This goes far beyond the schema's bare titles and defaults.

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?

Description names a specific verb+resource: 'Search historical detections with flexible filters.' It clearly conveys the tool's core function and the filtering/pagination focus. However, it does not distinguish itself from similarly named siblings like get_detections or get_recent_detections.

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 use for filtered historical searches, but it never states when to choose this tool over alternatives such as get_recent_detections or get_detections. There are no explicit usage conditions, exclusions, or sibling comparisons.

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