DeepMiro

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds context about what fields are searchable (topic, project name, simulation ID) and that it searches 'past' simulations, which is useful behavioral information not in the annotations. However, it doesn't describe pagination, result format, or other behavioral traits.

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. Every word earns its place - no redundant information, no unnecessary elaboration. It's appropriately sized for a simple search tool with good annotations.

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?

For a search tool with good annotations (read-only, non-destructive, closed-world) and 100% schema coverage, the description provides adequate context about searchable fields. However, without an output schema, the description doesn't explain what results look like (e.g., list of simulations with what fields), and there's a minor inconsistency between 'topic' in description vs. 'requirement' in schema.

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%, with the parameter 'query' fully documented in the schema. The description adds marginal value by specifying what the query matches against (simulation ID, project name, or requirement - note 'requirement' differs from description's 'topic'), but doesn't provide additional syntax, format, or semantic details beyond what the schema already states.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('past simulations'), and identifies searchable fields (topic, project name, simulation ID). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_simulations' or 'simulation_data' - it implies filtering/searching vs. listing, but this distinction isn't stated.

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 implies usage context by specifying what fields are searchable, suggesting this tool is for finding specific simulations rather than general listing. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives like 'list_simulations' or 'simulation_data', nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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