lax_search_agents

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

'Free read' is a genuine behavioral disclosure (no cost, non-mutating) that no annotation supplies, since annotations are absent. Beyond that, nothing is said about result limits, pagination, or whether the full agent set is returned — meaningful gaps for a search endpoint with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. The 100-character clause duplicates the schema constraint, a small redundancy.

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 one-optional-parameter read tool this is close to sufficient, but with no output schema and no annotations the agent still lacks any sense of what a result looks like (count, fields, paging), which the description could have sketched.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load; it confirms the parameter is optional free text and repeats the 100-character cap already encoded in maxLength. It does not say which agent fields the text is matched against or whether matching is substring, prefix, or fuzzy.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Search listed LAX agents'. No sibling in the provided list overlaps in resource, so the tool is easily distinguished, but 'listed' is left unexplained and no explicit contrast with siblings is offered.

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?

'by optional free text' implies the agent can call with no query to enumerate agents, which is useful guidance. However, there is no statement of when to prefer this over other lookup paths or any prerequisite context.

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