search_by_lines

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the search action and gives no indication of read-only nature, potential side effects, or match semantics (e.g., exact vs. partial). This is minimal information for a search tool.

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, clear sentence with no extraneous words. The core action and subject are front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 with no output schema, the description is mostly adequate. It doesn't mention nuances like case sensitivity or wildcard support, but these are optional for basic functionality. The tool is straightforward enough that no critical information 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?

The schema covers the single parameter 'text' with a description that aligns with the main description. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds little beyond restating the parameter's purpose, warranting the baseline score for high coverage.

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 the tool searches for poems based on text within their lines. This is a specific verb-resource pairing and naturally distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_by_author or search_by_title, which target different attributes.

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 implies use when searching by line content but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives. With siblings like search_by_title and search_by_author, an agent might infer the right choice, but no direct routing guidance is provided.

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