search_tools

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It provides useful traits: 'FREE', ranked 'best matches', configurable detail levels, and a default limit. It does not describe edge cases like empty results or exact response structure, but for a read-oriented search tool the disclosed behavior is reasonably complete.

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 dense but efficient: purpose, workflow, parameter semantics, and an example are all included in a few sentences. Every clause adds value, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description explains how to invoke it, what each parameter does, and what kind of results are returned. Minor gaps remain around exact response formatting and error behavior, but these are not critical for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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%, so the description fully compensates by explaining all three parameters: query as free text with examples, detail with its three enum values and default, and limit with its default of 5. This adds meaning well beyond the bare schema.

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 a specific action ('Search the full Relaystation tool catalog by keyword') and a concrete outcome ('get back the best matches'). It also distinguishes its role from sibling tools by positioning it as the first step before describe_tool and call_tool, so an agent can easily tell it apart.

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 explicitly says 'Use this first to find a tool, then describe_tool for its schema and call_tool to run it', giving a clear workflow. It also mentions the alternative of 'call a named hot tool directly', which helps an agent decide when searching is necessary versus when to skip it.

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