search_entities

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions that passing jurisdiction triggers upstream hydration, but lacks details on read-only nature, result format, pagination, or error handling. This is insufficient for a search tool with 6 parameters.

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 extremely concise at two sentences, with no filler. The first sentence clearly states the purpose, and the second adds a critical behavioral note. 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?

Given the complexity of 6 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is incomplete. It covers only purpose and one parameter behavior, missing key aspects like pagination, default behavior without jurisdiction, and return type. Sibling tools do not compensate for this lack.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only hints at the meaning of 'q' (search by name) and 'jurisdiction' (triggers hydration), ignoring 'kind', 'limit', 'had_role', and 'had_jurisdiction'. This leaves 4 out of 6 parameters unexplained.

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 searches for 'people or organizations by name across state legislatures', specifying the verb, resource, and context. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like get_bill or recent_bills which focus on bills, and the mention of OpenStates provides domain clarity.

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 provides clear context that the tool is for searching entities by name, and hints at using 'jurisdiction' to trigger hydration, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives. Sibling tools are available externally but not mentioned in the description.

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