gmb_info_chains_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, establishing the safety profile. The description adds the behavioral detail that searches are based on chain name, which is a slight addition beyond annotations. However, it does not explain fuzzy/partial matching or pagination behavior, which are left to the schema.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential operation without verbose wording. It is concise and to the point, with no filler or redundancy.

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?

The description does not mention what the response contains (e.g., a list of matching chains), nor does it indicate that chainName is required. The schema's chainName property notes 'Required,' but the top-level schema shows zero required parameters, creating ambiguity. With no output schema and minimal description, an agent may not understand the expected result format or mandatory inputs.

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 100%, so parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no extra parameter information beyond restating the chainName criterion. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema's comprehensive coverage.

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 operation: 'Searches the chain based on chain name.' This specifies the verb ('searches') and the resource ('chain'). It is distinct from sibling tools like gmb_info_chains_get, though not explicitly contrasting them; the search vs. get distinction is implied.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tools (e.g., gmb_info_chains_get) to consider. The only implied usage is searching by chain name, but no context about ideal scenarios or limitations.

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