fastmean_search_manual

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the "literal text" matching behavior, but says nothing about result limits, ranking, or whether a broad query floods the context.

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 tight clause pairs the action with the matching rule, with no filler. It is efficient, though the sparse phrasing leaves the resource noun ambiguous rather than front-loading a plain-language explanation.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not required, and annotations cover safety. What remains missing is the routing context an agent needs among many sibling search/lookup tools, plus any hint about result scope for a broad literal query.

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 carry the single parameter. "Query is literal text" usefully rules out regex/wildcards and explains why a plain phrase is expected, but it doesn't say what fields are matched (names, descriptions, keywords) or whether matching is case-sensitive.

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 verb "Search" is specific, but the object "the verified native automation reference" is jargon that doesn't clearly map to a manual/reference corpus, and nothing distinguishes it from sibling lookup tools like fastmean_example, fastmean_catalog, or fastmean_list_examples.

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 is no statement of when this search should be used versus the example/catalog/list_examples siblings, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. The agent must infer routing from the name alone.

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