search

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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only and idempotent. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond that: matching is case-insensitive and partial, and it returns identity data needed by other tools. It does not contradict annotations and covers the observable matching behavior.

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 short paragraphs plus an Args block, with the main purpose front-loaded. Every sentence contributes either the primary action, the workflow position, matching behavior, or the parameter rule.

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 single-parameter lookup with an output schema and read-only/idempotent annotations, the description provides everything an agent needs: what to search, why to search, how matching works, and the query constraint. The output schema covers return structure.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It explains that query accepts a name or ticker fragment and imposes a 1-80 character range, giving an agent enough semantic detail to construct a valid call.

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 action ('Find') and a clear resource set: members of Congress, tickers, and Federal Reserve officials, searched by name or symbol. It differentiates itself from the sibling tools by framing it as the resolution step that produces the politician id or exact symbol the other tools consume.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger: use this first when you have a name or ticker fragment and need an ID/symbol. It does not name a specific alternative or list when not to use it, but the first-use instruction makes the intended workflow clear.

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