oeis_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no note on result counts, pagination behavior via 'start', or how keyword vs sequence matching differs.

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?

A single well-formed sentence with no filler and the key concept (OEIS) front-loaded. Appropriately sized for a two-parameter search tool.

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 simple read-only lookup tool with full schema coverage and complete annotations, the description is minimally sufficient. It omits pagination semantics and result format, but with no output schema and low complexity those gaps are tolerable rather than blocking.

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%, and the description's 'sequence or keyword' phrase simply restates the schema's own description of 'query'. No extra semantics (e.g., format tolerance, whether comma-separated values are required) are added. Baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb (Search) and resource (OEIS), and clarifies the two query modes (sequence or keyword). It's clear what the tool does, though there are no OEIS siblings to differentiate from, so the extra routing detail is absent.

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?

There's no guidance on when to use this versus adjacent tools like number_fact, fibonacci_sequence, or other math utilities. The only implied usage comes from the word 'Search' and the mention of sequence/keyword input.

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