searchUnitsWithFilters

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'powerful filtering syntax' and gives examples, but lacks critical details such as pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or what the search results look like. This is insufficient for a search tool with multiple parameters.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the purpose, and the second provides specific filter examples. Every sentence earns its place by adding practical value without redundancy, making it front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 of a search tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral traits (e.g., result format, limitations), and while it hints at usage, it doesn't fully compensate for the missing structured data, leaving gaps for an AI agent.

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 already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds value by providing concrete examples of the 'searchQuery' parameter (e.g., 'state:<translated'), which helps clarify the filter syntax, but doesn't add significant meaning beyond what the schema provides for other parameters.

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 the tool searches translation units using Weblate's filtering syntax, which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'searchStringInProject' by emphasizing the powerful filtering capabilities, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with all search-related siblings.

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 usage through filter examples like 'state:<translated' and 'has:suggestion', suggesting when to use it for filtered searches. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'searchStringInProject' or 'findTranslationsForKey', leaving some ambiguity.

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