search_anno

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the behavioral burden. It discloses search characteristics (bare words ANDed, operator case sensitivity, wildcards), pagination limitations, and the nature of result counts (true match counts). It also indicates that 91% of holdings are full-text searchable.

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 well-structured and appropriately sized. It opens with a clear one-sentence summary, then provides scope, usage notes, parameter details, return structure, and examples. Every sentence adds value, and the information is front-loaded.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description details the return structure with all fields (page, total_results, documents, etc.) and provides multiple examples. For a search tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, this is exceptionally complete.

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 must compensate. It does so comprehensively: explains query syntax with examples, clarifies page default and fixed size, describes sort options and their implications. This adds meaning far beyond the raw schema.

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 searches ANNO, a historical newspaper archive, and specifies its scope (28 million pages, 1,600 titles). It distinguishes from siblings by noting that results resolve to an issue, not a page, directing to get_snippets for page-level detail.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives (get_snippets for page-level results). It details query syntax (AND, OR, NOT, wildcards), pagination behavior (fixed at 10, 1-indexed), and safe use of sort options (date ordering for sweeping queries).

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