search_concepts

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

No annotations provided. Description only says 'full-text search' and does not disclose behavioral traits such as pagination behavior, result format, sorting, or field search scope. Schema parameters hint at pagination but description adds no transparency.

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?

Single sentence, no fluff, front-loaded with the essential purpose. Every word 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?

With 5 parameters including pagination and no output schema, the description should explain return format or behavior. It only states purpose. Agent lacks info on response structure or how pagination works.

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 coverage is 100%, baseline is 3. Description does not add any parameter-level information beyond what the schema provides. It does not clarify usage of 'vocabulary' or 'offset'/'maxhits' semantics.

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 clearly states verb 'search', resource 'concepts', and scope 'across one or all vocabularies'. Distinguishes from siblings like autocomplete (prefix search) and get_concept (single concept retrieval).

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?

Implied usage: use for full-text search across concepts. No explicit when-not-to-use or mention of alternatives like autocomplete or concept_path. Guidance is minimal but not misleading.

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