search_concepts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying the tool 'return[s] ranked summaries', which indicates output format and ranking behavior. No contradictions with 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?

Description is a single sentence of 12 words, front-loading the key action and resource. Every word earns its place with no filler, achieving maximum conciseness while conveying core functionality.

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 (9 parameters, no output schema), the description is minimal. It mentions 'ranked summaries' but does not elaborate on ranking criteria, summary structure, or pagination behavior. While annotations cover safety, the description could provide more context for agent decision-making.

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 100% with all 9 parameters described individually in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level information. Per guidelines, high coverage justifies baseline 3.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'Search', the resource 'OKF concepts', and the output 'ranked summaries'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_concept (retrieves single) and list_concepts (lists all) by emphasizing text and structured filters with ranking. This specificity helps an agent select it over alternatives.

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?

Description implies usage for searching with text and filters, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as list_concepts or get_neighbors. No exclusions or alternative suggestions are given, so it relies on implicit understanding.

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