search_resource_nodes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains mode-specific behavior, that nearest requires `near`, how `sources` union/intersect logic works, and that providing `near` adds a distance column. It does not mention side effects or safety, but for a read-only search tool this is acceptable.

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 well-structured with bullet points and examples. Each sentence adds meaningful detail, and the content is front-loaded with the mode summary. It's informative without excessive verbosity.

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?

The description covers the main functionality (modes, selectors, near coordinate semantics) and key edge cases (e.g., nearest requires near, distance column added). However, it omits several parameters (`save`, `world`, `purity`, `only_free`, `group`) and does not describe return shape, which could leave an agent uncertain about certain options despite the schema.

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 only 36%, so the description compensates extensively. It thoroughly explains `mode`, `near`, and `sources` with examples, and implicitly covers `resource` via the selector syntax. It lacks detail for `save`, `world`, `purity`, and `only_free`, but the core parameters are well documented beyond the schema.

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 identifies the tool as searching resource nodes and provides a breakdown of three distinct output modes (fields, nodes, nearest), each with a specific purpose and example. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on resource-node discovery with location-based filtering.

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 explains when to use each mode (e.g., fields for finding high-yield clusters, nearest for proximity) and gives concrete selector examples. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or state exclusions, but the context is clear enough to guide selection among modes and parameters.

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