Search_Processes_Tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Search LCA processes data,' implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify aspects like search scope (e.g., partial vs. exact matches), result format, pagination, or any limitations (e.g., rate limits). For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence: 'Search LCA processes data.' It's front-loaded and wastes no words, making it highly concise and well-structured for its purpose.

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 the tool's complexity (a search function with one parameter), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the search returns, how results are structured, or any behavioral nuances. For a tool with no structured output or safety hints, more context is needed to be fully helpful.

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 100% description coverage, with the 'query' parameter documented as 'Queries from user.' The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as examples or constraints on the query format. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.

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 'Search LCA processes data' clearly states the action (search) and resource (LCA processes data), which is adequate. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'Search_Flows_Tool' or 'Search_Life_Cycle_Models_Tool', which also search related data types. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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. With siblings like 'OpenLCA_List_System_Processes_Tool' (which might list processes) and other search tools, there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. It's a basic statement without usage instructions.

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