search_concepts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds the key behavioral detail that results are 'ranked summaries' rather than full concept objects. It does not disclose pagination behavior, ranking algorithm, or how filters combine, but given strong annotations this is acceptable.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It communicates the core action, resource, output type, and filter categories efficiently.

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?

With 22 parameters and no output schema, a one-sentence description is insufficient. It mentions 'ranked summaries' but does not explain what a summary contains, how pagination works, or important behaviors like default limits or that results are filtered by all specified criteria. The schema covers parameters, but the return format and search semantics remain largely underspecified.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all 22 parameters. The description only adds the generic context of 'text and structured filters', which does not enrich the meaning of any specific parameter beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses a specific verb ('search') with a clear resource ('OKF concepts') and outcome ('return ranked summaries'), and differentiates the tool from siblings like list_concepts or get_concept by emphasizing text and structured filtering with relevance ranking.

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 implies when to use this tool: when you need to search concepts with text or structured filters and get ranked results. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it stops short of the explicit 'use X instead' guidance that would earn a 5.

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