search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the load and does disclose the most important behavioral constraint: the fixed speaker corpus that bounds results. It also prescribes quoting in the speaker's own words with Source link, title and date, which shapes how results should be used. It omits failure/empty-result behavior and any default-result-size context, keeping it below a 5.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the corpus scope and followed by the one actionable option. The citation/quoting sentence blends response-formatting guidance with search guidance, but every clause is informative and there is no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return structure needn't be explained, and the description covers the corpus, the one filtering option, and how to present citations. The only meaningful gap is the unexplained `limit` default in an otherwise complete definition for a 3-parameter search tool.

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, and it does for `speaker` (a slug sourced from list_speakers). The `limit` parameter and its default of 8 are never mentioned, so one of three parameters remains semantically opaque. Partial compensation supports a 3.

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?

Uses a specific verb (search) plus resource (talks) and, unusually, defines the corpus by speaker: First Presidency, the Twelve, apostles who died since 2021, and general presidencies. That scope statement distinguishes it from list_talks/list_speakers, though it never explicitly says how it differs from those siblings.

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?

"Optionally limit to one speaker slug from list_speakers" gives clear conditional usage and routes the agent to the sibling needed to obtain a valid slug. It stops short of stating when to prefer this over list_talks or what to do when a query returns nothing.

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