search_indicators

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It helpfully reveals that results include ranking, match evidence, retrieval health, and source failures—non-obvious diagnostics. However, it does not explain how ranking works, whether query matching is fuzzy or exact, or any pagination/limit behavior.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It puts the ranking behavior first and immediately summarizes the return payload. It could be slightly more informative, but it is efficiently structured.

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?

Despite the existence of an output schema and only three parameters, the description leaves important context undefined: what constitutes an official indicator, which sources are searched, how ranking is determined, and when source failures occur. With no annotations and 0% parameter coverage, this is too sparse for reliable invocation in an unfamiliar context.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it does not explain query syntax, the meaning of limit, or how source_ids filters results. Only the tool name and the phrase 'source failures' faintly hint at query and source-related parameters; this is minimal compensation.

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 names a specific action—ranking/searching official indicators—and states that it returns match evidence, retrieval health, and source failures. This distinguishes it from metadata or observation retrieval tools, though it does not explicitly contrast with a sibling search tool like find_microdata.

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 about when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as find_microdata, get_indicator_metadata, or list_sources. The implied use case is 'search for indicators,' but exclusions, prerequisites, and routing conditions are absent.

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