Search Entities

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose search behavior. It does not mention pagination, case sensitivity, partial matching, or result format. This is a critical gap for a search tool.

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 very short (one sentence), which is concise but lacks structure. It front-loads the purpose but omits important details, making it insufficiently informative despite its brevity.

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 absence of output schema and annotations, the description should compensate but fails to. It does not explain return values, pagination, or error behavior, making it severely incomplete for an effective tool invocation.

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 0% because the description adds no parameter explanations beyond the schema definitions. For example, it doesn't clarify that 'text' is a search query or that 'types' filters entity types.

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 it searches multiple entity types (competitions, categories, etc.) and lists them, distinguishing from sibling get/list tools that return specific entities. However, it doesn't specify the search behavior (e.g., prefix/fuzzy) which could be clearer.

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 explicit guidance on when to use search vs sibling tools like get_* or list_*. The description implies general search use but omits prerequisites or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer.

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