Neotoma

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes several behavioral traits: the strict mode constraint about search parameter combinations, the lightweight response option with include_snapshots=false, and compatibility rules for parameter aliases. However, it doesn't mention performance characteristics, rate limits, or authentication requirements.

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 efficiently structured in three sentences that each serve distinct purposes: stating the tool's purpose, explaining constraints, and clarifying parameter aliases. There's no wasted verbiage, and the most critical information (purpose and constraints) appears first.

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 complex tool with 15 parameters and no output schema, the description provides good usage guidance but lacks information about return values, error conditions, or performance characteristics. The absence of annotations means the description should ideally cover more behavioral aspects, though it does well on parameter interaction rules.

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 the schema already documents all 15 parameters thoroughly. The description adds some semantic context about parameter interactions (search constraints) and the purpose of include_snapshots, but doesn't provide significant additional parameter meaning beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is high.

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 retrieves filtered entity lists and supports lexical/semantic retrieval via search, which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'retrieve_entity_by_identifier' or 'retrieve_related_entities', which also retrieve entities but with different approaches.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('when you need filtered entity lists... or lexical/semantic retrieval via search') and includes specific usage constraints ('search cannot be combined with non-default sorting or published filters'). It also mentions compatibility considerations for parameter aliases.

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