search_heritage

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does add useful return-field information for plaques versus monuments, but it omits matching behavior, sorting, pagination semantics, and what happens when kind is 'both'. These are meaningful gaps for a tool with no annotation-backed safety or behavior hints.

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 two focused sentences with no wasted words. The search scope is front-loaded, and the second sentence efficiently captures the differing return contents for plaques and monuments. Every sentence contributes essential information.

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 tool's low complexity and the presence of schema defaults for kind and limit, the description covers the essential context: what is searched, in what language, and what each result type returns. Minor omissions like explicit behavior for 'both' and limit application prevent a 5, but the description is largely sufficient for correct invocation.

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 only 33%, with only 'query' documented. The description clarifies the query text domain (Armenian name/address) and implies the plaque/monument distinction, but it does not explain the 'kind' enum values or the 'limit' parameter at all. This is insufficient compensation 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 names a specific verb ('Search') and a distinct resource ('cultural heritage — memorial plaques and monuments'), and specifies the search input (name/address text in Armenian). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like search_street or search_layers, which target different data domains.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: when searching Armenian cultural heritage records by name or address text. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools for street or layer searches, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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