search_algorithms

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It describes the search behavior, return format (ranked results with fields), and chaining mechanism. Missing details on rate limits or edge cases, but sufficient for a search tool.

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?

Three concise sentences covering purpose, output, and usage hints. No redundant information, every sentence adds value.

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 4 parameters and existing output schema, description covers key behavioral aspects (search, result structure, chaining). Minor gaps on limit and category, but overall complete for a tool with output schema.

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%, yet description adds meaning: explains query as search term, language defaults/aliases, and path usage. Does not detail limit or category, but provides enough context for typical use.

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 explicitly states it searches algorithms by name/topic and returns ranked results with specific fields. It distinguishes from siblings like list_languages and get_algorithm by specifying search functionality and chaining.

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 clear usage context: search algorithms by query, default language, aliases, and chaining with get_algorithm. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool (e.g., for listing categories) but implies it via sibling references.

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