search_impresso

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses critical behaviors: the server escapes operator characters, multi-word queries are treated as phrases, and results include keyword-in-context fragments in braces. While it doesn't mention pagination limits or error handling, it goes beyond the bare minimum in explaining how the tool behaves.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence earns its place: coverage details set expectations, the result format clarifies output, and the bolded warning about operator syntax is essential. No redundancy or fluff.

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's simplicity, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, usage guidelines, behavioral nuances, and parameter semantics. An output schema exists, so detailed return values are not required. The description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, though it could have mentioned pagination behavior in more detail.

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 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds semantic value to the 'query' parameter by explaining the no-operator-syntax rule and phrase matching, which is not evident from the schema alone. The 'page' parameter is straightforward and needs no extra explanation.

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's function: 'Search the Swiss and Luxembourgish historical press full text.' It specifies the resource (historical press) and differentiates from siblings by noting results are individual articles with inline keyword-in-context fragments, and by explicitly mentioning the alternative advanced_search_impresso for advanced filtering.

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 states when to use this tool versus alternatives: 'Use `advanced_search_impresso` for alternatives, exclusions and filters.' It also explains that there is no operator syntax, so complex queries should go to the advanced tool. This provides clear usage boundaries.

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