search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the two return kinds, the meaning of 'url' and 'pdf_url', pagination behavior ('paginated by 10, max 50'), and query operators. This is solid coverage, though it does not mention potential errors, rate limits, or any authentication requirements.

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 efficiently structured with a front-loaded purpose, a bulleted breakdown of return types, and concise parameter explanations. Every sentence contributes meaningful information without redundancy or 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 two-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers the resource, result types, links for further access, pagination limits, and query syntax, making it self-sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.

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?

The schema provides only titles and a default with no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must fully compensate. It does: 'query' is explained as search terms with operator support, and 'limit' is clarified as result count with pagination and max value. This adds clear meaning beyond the raw 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 identifies the verb 'Search' and the specific resource 'theses.cz (Czech national thesis registry)', and further specifies 'full text and metadata.' It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by defining the two result kinds ('record' and 'fulltext') and how they relate to the 'detail' and 'fulltext' tools.

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 implicitly provides usage context by explaining that record hits point to detail pages and fulltext hits point to PDF links, referencing the sibling tools 'detail' and 'fulltext.' However, it does not explicitly state 'use this when...' or contrast with alternatives, so it provides clear context but no direct exclusionary guidance.

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