search-roles

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the search functionality but lacks details on behavioral traits such as case sensitivity, partial vs. exact matching, pagination or result limits, error handling, or what the output format looks like (since there's no output schema). This leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to understand how to use the tool effectively.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without any wasted words. It directly communicates the tool's function and scope, making it easy for an AI agent to parse and understand quickly.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a search tool. It does not address key contextual aspects such as the format of search results, handling of no matches, or any limitations (e.g., search performance or constraints). For a tool with one parameter but no structured output information, more detail is needed to ensure the agent can use it correctly.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'query' fully documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'keyword in their name or description', which slightly clarifies the search scope but does not provide additional syntax or format details. This meets the baseline for high schema 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 specific action ('Search for ARIA roles') and resource ('ARIA roles'), with precise scope ('by keyword in their name or description'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list-roles' (which presumably lists all roles without filtering) and 'get-role' (which likely retrieves a specific role by identifier).

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 provides context for usage ('by keyword in their name or description'), suggesting this tool is for keyword-based filtering rather than retrieving all roles or specific ones by ID. However, it does not explicitly state when to use alternatives like 'list-roles' or 'get-role', nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites, which prevents a perfect score.

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