tool_search

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It states the tool searches and returns ranked tool definitions, conveying a read-only operation. It adds useful context about ranking and output format. It does not explicitly mention side effects or limitations, but for a search tool, the implied read-only nature is clear enough.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and every word earns its place. It is concise, direct, and free of fluff.

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 simple one-parameter search tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It explains the purpose, the query mechanism, and the output format, which is sufficient for the agent to select and invoke it correctly. No critical gaps exist given the tool's simplicity.

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%, so the parameter 'query' is well-documented in the schema as 'Natural language query to search for tools'. The description merely restates this ('natural language') without adding extra parameters, constraints, or examples. It does not enhance beyond the schema.

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 a specific action: 'Search for tools using natural language.' It also specifies the output: 'Returns matching tool definitions ranked by relevance, in the same format as list_tools.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like kb_search (knowledge base) and call_tool (execution).

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 this tool searches for tools, which implies usage when the agent needs to find a tool definition. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, such as kb_search for knowledge base queries. The reference to list_tools gives some contextual hint, but no explicit exclusions.

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