refero_search

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

No annotations provided, but the description discloses the search mechanism (embedding or BM25 fallback), caching behavior (mirrored on first call), and refresh policy (every 24 hours). This explains backend behavior adequately for a read-only search tool, though no side effects are mentioned.

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?

Three concise sentences covering purpose, algorithm, and caching. No redundant information; all sentences earn their place.

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?

Without an output schema, the description does not specify the structure of returned results (e.g., fields like name, tags, thumbnail). Also lacks details on how tag filtering interacts with the search. Adequate but has gaps.

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 coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions. The description does not repeat parameter details but adds context about the search algorithm, which is separate from parameter definitions. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clearly identifies the tool as a natural-language search over a specific catalog (styles.refero.design). It distinguishes from siblings like refero_list (listing) and refero_similar (similarity search) by emphasizing vibe-based search. The mention of embedding vs BM25 fallback adds specificity.

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?

Implies use for natural-language queries but does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or prefer siblings. No direct comparison with sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer context from names.

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