repository_search

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

The readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint annotations already cover the tool's safety profile, so the description does not need to restate it. What the description adds instead is a non-obvious runtime detail: pages advance in source-side offsets of 20 results, while limit only trims the locally returned set. That is genuinely useful behavior that the annotations and schema do not convey.

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?

It consists of two dense clauses with zero filler, and the core action is stated first. The telegraphic, mixed-language phrasing ('page memakai offset sumber 20 hasil') costs some readability, but no sentence is wasted.

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 3-parameter search tool with no output schema and safety already declared in its annotations, the pagination semantics are covered and that is the main risk area. Still missing: the required query syntax or scope, and whether results are summaries that need to be resolved with the sibling repository_item. The description should cover this last gap.

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%: the schema lists page, limit, and query with types and bounds but no meanings, and the description explains the interaction between page and limit well enough for an agent to paginate correctly. It says nothing about the required query parameter beyond the fact that it exists, and it omits the interaction between limit=50 and the fixed 20-result source page.

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 tool's purpose is conveyed through "Cari metadata EPrints UMB", which pairs a specific verb with a specific resource (the EPrints repository) and a subject area. The description gives no signal about when to use this tool rather than its siblings, including catalog_search, repository_item, and repository_oai, and "metadata" remains vague about what is actually searched and returned.

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 contains no statement of when to use this tool, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. The closest thing to guidance is the pagination explanation, which tells how to call the tool, not when.

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