composio_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description adds that results include slugs, whether the tool writes, and required argument names, which goes beyond the annotations. It does not discuss rate limits or auth, but for a read-only search tool this is a minor gap, not a contradiction.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states the purpose first, gives exclusions, and closes with the exact follow-up action. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 read-only search tool, the description covers purpose, exclusions, return contents, and the next step, which is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly. The only material gap is the unexplained optional toolkit parameter, which prevents a perfect score.

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%, so the description must carry the semantic load for the parameters. It does not explain what 'query' should contain beyond the general search context, and it entirely ignores the 'toolkit' parameter, which is undocumented in both the schema and the description.

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 opens with a specific action and target: 'Find overflow-app tools on Composio's free tier' with concrete examples. It also distinguishes the tool from first-party Alfred connectors and from composio_execute, the follow-up call, so an agent can tell them apart.

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 explicitly says when not to use this tool: 'Do not use this for Gmail, Calendar, GitHub, Slack, Telegram, or Fitbit' because those are first-party Alfred connectors. It also names the next step, composio_execute, and says to call it with a slug.

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