search_vc6

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format (ranked sourced snippets and source URLs), scopes the knowledge base to facts.json + topic markdown, and adds a notable behavioral guarantee: "Does not invent ticket prices." It doesn't mention side effects or rate limits, but this is adequate for a read-only 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?

The description is two sentences with minimal filler. It front-loads the core action and purpose, then concisely lists the return type and a key limitation. Every clause contributes meaningful 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?

For a simple two-parameter search tool, the description covers purpose, scope, output shape, and a behavioral guarantee. It lacks explicit routing among sibling tools and does not detail the output structure beyond snippets and URLs, but given the low complexity and the absence of an output schema, it is nearly complete.

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% (both query and limit are described in the input schema), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond the "keyword search" framing; it doesn't need to, but it also doesn't elevate the score.

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 states a specific verb and resource: "Keyword search over bundled VC6 / sechscamp knowledge (facts.json + topic markdown)", and clearly defines the output as "ranked sourced snippets and source URLs." While it does not explicitly name sibling tools, the search action and the "does not invent ticket prices" caveat imply differentiation from the Q&A-style ask_vc6.

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 this is for keyword-style factual lookup and includes a limitation, but it never explicitly states when to prefer search_vc6 over get_topic, list_topics, or ask_vc6. There is no when-not-to-use guidance, so an agent must infer the intended use case from the action and output description.

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