search_coaches

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 case-insensitivity, the return structure (coach_id, name, Elo, current club), and even notes that PlayerElo is the only public system rating coaches. However, it does not cover pagination, limit behavior, or potential error conditions.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every sentence adds value, including the note about PlayerElo and the guidance to use coach_id with other coach tools. No redundant or vague phrasing.

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 simple search tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential return values and the next-step action. It is missing details about limit semantics and potential edge cases, but overall it provides enough context for correct usage.

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%, and the description does not explicitly document either parameter. It implies that 'query' is the name to search, but 'limit' is entirely unmentioned. The description fails to compensate for the lack of parameter docs, though the parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory.

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 specifies the verb 'Find' and the resource 'coaches/managers' with a case-insensitive name search, distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_players. It also lists the key return fields, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 provides clear context for use: finding coaches by name and then using the returned coach_id with other coach tools. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is sufficient for an agent to select it appropriately.

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