effect_search

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 indicates a read operation ('Find') but does not disclose return format, pagination behavior, rate limits, or any side effects. The description is too minimal to inform an agent of what to expect when calling this 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 a single, concise sentence with no filler or redundancy. It directly states the core function, making it efficient for an agent to parse. This is an appropriate length for a search tool, though it sacrifices completeness for brevity.

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 has 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far from complete. An agent would need to know what results look like (structure, pagination, limits) and how the parameters influence output. The description provides none of this, making it insufficient for confident 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?

The description does not mention either parameter (limit or query), and schema description coverage is 0%. While the schema itself provides defaults and constraints (limit range, query max length), it lacks semantic meaning. The description fails to explain how 'query' and 'limit' affect the search, leaving the agent without essential usage context.

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 clear action ('Find') and a specific resource ('effect records') with a qualifier ('with parameter/effect evidence and current registration'). This distinguishes it from generic search tools, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like effect_probe or effect_index, which may serve overlapping purposes.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks any conditions, exclusions, or mention of sibling tools that could help an agent decide between effect_search, effect_probe, or effect_index. The only implied usage is for finding effect records, but no explicit direction is given.

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