search_factors

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It explicitly notes that values are redacted, which is a key behavioral trait, and lists the returned fields (keys, names, sections). It implies a read-only operation without side effects, which is reasonable for a search tool. It doesn't mention error handling or rate limits, but these are not critical for a simple search.

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, front-loaded with the action and search modes. The second sentence clarifies the return format and redaction, plus directs to lookup_factor for values. No wasted words, excellent structure.

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 search tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what the tool does and what it returns (keys, names, sections, and that values are redacted). It covers the essential information for an agent to know whether and how to use it, though it doesn't discuss edge cases like empty results or pagination beyond the limit parameter. Overall, it's complete enough for its simplicity.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with each parameter well-described (limit, query, section, key_prefix). The description adds minimal extra meaning by mentioning the three search modes (section, key prefix, free text), but this essentially restates what the schema already says. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't significantly expand on the 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 clearly states the tool's function: finding emission-factor keys by section, key prefix, or free text. It specifies the resource and search modes, and distinguishes itself from lookup_factor by noting that values are redacted and calling lookup_factor is needed for the value.

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 implicitly guides when to use this tool vs. lookup_factor by stating 'call lookup_factor for the value,' which indicates that this is for searching and lookup_factor for getting actual values. However, it doesn't mention other sibling tools like resolve_factor or calculate_* tools, so it provides clear but not exhaustive alternative context.

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