nc_search_facilities

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It says 'Search' which implies a read-only operation, but does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, or disclose pagination, sorting, or result format beyond the limit parameter. The behavioral profile is underspecified for a tool with no annotation safety hints.

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?

A single, efficient sentence that states the action and scope with no extraneous words. It is appropriately front-loaded and easily scannable.

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 two-parameter search, the description is adequate but incomplete given the sibling ecosystem. It does not mention when to prefer this over nc_get_public_facilities, nor does it describe output shape. The schema covers parameters but behavioral and selection context is missing.

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% for both parameters ('Search term' and 'Max results'). The description adds no additional semantic nuance beyond what the schema already documents, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 verb ('Search') and resource ('public facilities by name in Greater Nouméa'). It distinguishes from the sibling nc_get_public_facilities by implying search rather than retrieval of all facilities, though it does not explicitly name that alternative.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. Given the sibling nc_get_public_facilities, the description does not clarify whether to use search for name-based filtering or get for full listings. An agent must infer the distinction from the verb alone.

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