search_sequences

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does at a high level, without mentioning pagination behavior (implied by skip/limit parameters), rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what format the results will be in. For a search tool with 3 parameters, this leaves significant behavioral aspects undocumented.

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 extremely concise at just one sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently lists the three search criteria. Every element earns its place in this minimal description.

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?

For a search tool with 3 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what constitutes a valid search query, how results are returned, what fields are included, or any limitations. The agent would need to guess about the tool's behavior and output format based on minimal information.

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 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning search criteria (keywords, ID, name) which relates to the 'q' parameter, but doesn't provide additional context about how these criteria work together or format expectations. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the tool's purpose as searching for integer sequences using specific criteria (keywords, ID, or name). It specifies the verb 'search' and resource 'integer sequences', making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_programs' or 'get_sequence', which would require more specific scope definition.

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 like 'get_sequence' or 'search_programs'. It mentions search criteria but doesn't indicate whether this is the primary search tool, when to prefer it over direct lookup tools, or any prerequisites for effective use.

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