search_specifications

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses return type ('Formatted search results with citations'), potential errors (ValueError for invalid mode), and parameter behavior. However, it omits details like rate limits, authorization needs, or side effects, which are minor 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?

The description is concise: a one-line purpose followed by parameter details in a standard docstring format. No extraneous text; every sentence adds value. The structure is front-loaded and clear.

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 function as a search, the description covers query syntax, modes, result count, and filtering. An output schema is present to describe return structure. Minor gaps: no explanation of when to choose a specific mode or how results are ranked, but overall sufficient.

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 fully compensates. Each parameter is explained with type, default, and allowed values (e.g., mode options 'bm25', 'semantic', 'hybrid'). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's minimal title/type/default fields.

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 'Search Bluetooth specifications,' using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_index_status and list_indexed_specs, which deal with index management and listing, not search.

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. It does not mention when not to use it or highlight any prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent without contextual cues for tool selection.

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