search_parameters

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that search is case-insensitive substring matching, that include_reserved pulls in 'unimplemented' parameters, and that results are ordered as they appear in the catalog. It also reveals the live vs. bundled-snapshot source distinction. It could go further by explaining what 'unimplemented' means or how source is chosen, but coverage is strong.

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 tightly structured with Args and Returns sections, front-loads the core purpose in one sentence, and contains no filler. Every line adds useful information for calling the tool correctly.

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 read-only search tool with three parameters and an output schema, the description is complete: it explains the search scope, all parameter behaviors, and the return shape including count, source, and ordering. No critical calling information appears to be missing.

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 must fully compensate. It does: 'query' is defined as substring match, case-insensitive; 'category' as an optional single-category restriction; 'include_reserved' as whether to include unimplemented parameters. Every parameter receives meaningful semantic context beyond the raw 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 states a specific action ('Text-search over parameter names, aliases, descriptions, values, examples') with a clear resource and scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_parameters and get_parameter, which imply enumeration and direct lookup rather than substring 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 explains the mechanics of the search (substring match, case-insensitivity, category restriction, include_reserved flag) but does not explicitly say when to choose search_parameters over list_parameters or get_parameter. Usage is implied rather than directly contrasted with alternatives.

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