search_runbooks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'Search'. It does not mention whether results are paginated, sorted, limited, or how the limit parameter affects behavior.

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 concise sentence with no fluff, and it is front-loaded with the action verb. However, the conciseness comes at the cost of missing usage and parameter guidance, making it adequate but not exemplary.

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?

The tool is simple and an output schema exists, so return values need not be described. Still, the description lacks behavioral details, parameter semantics, and differentiation from sibling tools, leaving noticeable gaps for an agent deciding whether to invoke it.

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, but it adds no explanation for the 'query' or 'limit' parameters. The noun 'runbooks' weakly implies what 'query' searches, but the optional 'limit' behavior is completely undocumented.

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 states a clear verb ('Search') and a specific resource ('operational runbooks and troubleshooting knowledge'), which tells an agent what this tool does. It does not explicitly distinguish it from search_etl_logs, but the resource is distinct enough that the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_etl_logs, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The only hint is the searchable resource itself, which is implied rather than stated.

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