search_analytics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the search functionality and output format but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or pagination behavior. The description adds some context about discovering names but doesn't fully compensate for missing 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?

The description is well-structured and front-loaded with purpose, followed by usage guidelines, args, and returns. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. The bullet-point style for args and returns enhances readability while maintaining brevity.

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 5 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description does a good job explaining parameters and output. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like authentication or error handling. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to fully describe returns, but some gaps remain for a search tool.

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 compensate. It lists all 5 parameters with brief explanations (e.g., 'Keyword to search for in analytic names', 'Optional analytic group ID to narrow search'), adding meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't provide examples or format details for parameters like 'ems_system_id'.

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's purpose: 'Search for time-series analytics by name (altitude, airspeed, etc.)' with specific examples. It distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning 'query_flight_analytics' as an alternative for direct querying, making the distinction explicit.

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: 'Use this tool to discover available analytic names' and contrasts with 'query_flight_analytics' for direct querying. It specifies when to use this tool (for discovery) versus when to use the alternative (for querying with known names).

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