search_tools

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 states the tool returns tool info at a specified detail level, which is the core behavior, but does not disclose other traits like auth, rate limits, or handling of empty results. This is adequate but not thorough.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action verb, and contains no redundant content. Every word earns its place.

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?

The tool has a simple three-parameter structure with no output schema or annotations. The description covers the primary purpose, search dimensions, and return detail behavior. It doesn't state defaults or sorting, but for a tool-lookup utility, this is reasonably complete.

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 description clarifies that the query parameter searches by name/tag/description and that detail controls returned information, adding meaning beyond the schema. It also gives context for the undocumented 'tags' parameter by mentioning 'tag' as a search dimension. Schema coverage is 67%, so the description supplements gaps.

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 uses the specific verb 'Find' and identifies the resource 'available tools' with search dimensions (name, tag, description). It also specifies the return detail level, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'search' or document retrieval 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 implies a clear use case—discovering available tools—but does not explicitly state when to use it versus sibling tools like 'search' or 'get_document'. There are no exclusion criteria or alternative recommendations, so it provides clear context without exclusions.

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