fact_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, but it only mentions 'the existing canonical-adjudicated query service.' It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, how results are ordered or filtered, what statuses are included, or any side effects, leaving the agent to infer 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 concise sentence with no redundant wording, making it efficient. However, it is too sparse to be fully self-contained, though that issue is captured in other dimensions.

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?

Given 9 parameters, a complex conditional schema, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain the query modes, time axes, record kinds/statuses, filtering options, or any response shape, leaving most operational context absent.

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 input schema has 9 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description adds no parameter-level information. The terms 'text' and 'mode' are required but their meaning and interaction (e.g., mode enum values like 'temporal' or 'hybrid') are entirely unexplained in the description.

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 identifies a search action and a resource ('AFS'), so it is not a tautology. However, 'AFS' is undefined and there is no differentiation from sibling tools like document_search or fact_get, making the exact scope of the search unclear.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as fact_get, timeline, or document_search. It only states what the tool does, with no exclusions, prerequisites, or contextual usage signals.

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