get_tools_search

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure itself. It does disclose that the result is a compact subset and that matching can occur by name, description, or folder. It does not describe output shape, truncation, pagination, or exact matching semantics, but for a read-only search tool this is a modest gap.

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?

One sentence with no filler; the core action, scope, and purpose are front-loaded. Every phrase earns its place.

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 two-parameter search tool the core is covered: what it searches and why. Missing pieces (return format, relationship to get_tools_list/get_tools_by_folder, limit behavior) are not severe but would help an agent use it optimally.

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?

With 0% schema_description_coverage, the description must compensate. 'By name, description, or folder' clarifies what can go in `query`, which is valuable. `limit` is left to its schema constraints; the description adds no meaning for it, so coverage is only partial.

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?

States a specific verb ('Search'), a resource ('tools'), and the searchable fields ('name, description, or folder'), plus the outcome ('compact subset... reduce context usage'). This differentiates it from siblings like get_tools_list and get_tools_by_folder without needing their schemas.

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 'to reduce context usage' implies when to use it (discovery/search over full listing), and 'compact subset' suggests it replaces heavier listing options. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving some routing to inference.

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