search_lantern

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It does so thoroughly, revealing the OR-default operator, boolean support, lack of wildcards, and the output format (each result resolves to one scanned leaf with keyword-in-context excerpts in {braces}). The example counts (272,059 vs 27) vividly illustrate the impact of quoting phrases.

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 appropriately sized given the tool's complexities, with the purpose front-loaded in the first sentence. It is well-structured into distinct paragraphs covering corpus, syntax, and output format, with all-caps emphasis for the critical OR-default warning. Every sentence adds value; the examples and counts are illustrative rather than padding.

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?

The description is complete for a search tool with two simple parameters and an output schema. It covers the corpus scope, notable search quirks, and the inline result format, ensuring the agent understands what will be returned. The implicit nod to the sibling tool for full-text retrieval is sufficient given the tool's purpose.

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?

The input schema fully documents both parameters ('Search terms' and 'Result page number, 1-indexed'), so the baseline is 3. The description adds significant meaning to the query parameter by explaining how terms are combined (OR by default) and the importance of quoting phrases, which is not captured in the schema. It does not add anything for the page parameter, but that is adequately described.

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 purpose: 'Search the entertainment trade press full text.' It elaborates on the exact corpus indexed (Variety, Billboard, New York Clipper, etc.) and timeframe, distinguishing it from general news searches. The sibling tool get_lantern_text is implicitly differentiated by noting that search results include excerpts 'so no further call is needed to judge a hit.'

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 strong contextual guidance by specifying the corpus is 'the industry's own press' and offering detailed search syntax instructions: 'THE DEFAULT OPERATOR IS OR, NOT AND.' It advises when to quote phrases and explicitly states what is not supported ('wildcards and proximity do not'). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool.

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