search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the default behavior for missing 'indexUid' (search across all indices), which is useful context. However, it lacks critical details such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the search results look like (e.g., format, pagination). For a search tool with 6 parameters, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, consisting of two clear sentences. The first sentence directly states the tool's purpose, and the second adds essential parameter context without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place by providing value, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 the complexity (6 parameters, 1 required), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and one parameter's default behavior but misses details on other parameters, behavioral traits like safety or performance, and expected outputs. For a search tool in this context, more comprehensive information is needed to guide effective agent use.

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%, meaning none of the 6 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description only addresses one parameter ('indexUid') by explaining its default behavior when omitted. It doesn't add meaning for other parameters like 'filter', 'limit', 'offset', 'query', or 'sort', leaving most semantics undocumented. This fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 as 'Search through Meilisearch indices' with a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('Meilisearch indices'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get-documents' or 'list-indexes' by focusing on search functionality rather than retrieval or listing. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential search alternatives within the sibling set.

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 implied usage guidance by stating 'If indexUid is not provided, it will search across all indices,' which suggests when to omit this parameter. However, it doesn't offer explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use advice or name alternatives among siblings like 'get-documents' for specific document retrieval. The guidance is limited to parameter behavior rather than tool selection.

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