search_veronica

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 discloses the core behavior (search and menu return) and gives an example host/selector, but it does not mention error handling, network side effects, read-only nature, or any potential pitfalls. This is a moderate level of transparency for a 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 a single, focused sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose and gives a concrete example. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary information, making it appropriately concise.

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 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the essential idea but lacks important details. It does not explain the output format beyond 'menu', does not explicitly mention that query is required, and ignores port and the selector discrepancy. It is adequate for a simple tool but has clear gaps.

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 schema covers only 50% of parameters (query and selector have descriptions, host and port do not). The description adds an example host and selector, which partially compensates, but the example selector '/7/v2/vs' conflicts with the schema default '/v2/vs', creating confusion. Port is not addressed at all, and the description does not fully compensate for the schema gaps.

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 performs a Gopher search (type 7), provides a concrete example of a Veronica-2 search on gopher.floodgap.com, and indicates the return format as a menu. This distinguishes it from siblings like open_menu and read_textfile, which handle different Gopher operations.

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 for running a Gopher search, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like open_menu or read_textfile. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, so guidance is only implied rather than explicit.

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