search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and not destructive, so the description adds behavior like sorting by date descending and error types ('invalid_filter', 'upstream_error'), which is helpful context beyond the annotations.

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 somewhat long but every sentence adds value. It front-loads the database name and document counts, then details filters, sorting, and errors. Could be slightly more concise, but no waste.

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?

Given 8 parameters with 100% schema coverage, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description adequately explains usage context including search behavior, sorting, and errors. It covers the complexity well.

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 covers all parameters with descriptions, but the tool description adds critical context like prefix matching for signature, the meaning of full_phrase, and that category_ids come from list_categories. This provides value beyond schema alone.

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 searches the EUREKA database of Polish tax documents, specifies the document types and counts, and distinguishes from siblings like search_by_signature which is signature-specific.

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?

Usage is implied for general text search with filters, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this vs siblings like get_interpretation or list_categories. No when-not-to-use conditions.

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