Search classes and properties (free text)

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent), the description discloses shared pagination behavior ('classes are listed first, properties after them') and the IFC preview default, which are meaningful behavioral nuances. This adds substantial context that would not be obvious from the schema alone.

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 consists of three sentences, each delivering distinct information: purpose, pagination behavior, and an alternative tool with a default note. It is front-loaded and contains no redundant or filler content.

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?

With 10 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the most important behavioral aspects: the combined result type, pagination, and IFC preview condition. It does not detail the return structure, but for a search tool the description is sufficiently complete to guide correct invocation and interpretation.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value by explaining that includePreview defaults to true here and that this affects IFC dictionary inclusion, and by connecting the shared pagination to the semantics of limit/offset. This goes beyond merely restating parameter descriptions.

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 'Free-text search returning both classes and properties,' which clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling bsdd_search_classes by noting 'use bsdd_search_classes for class-only searches,' making the differentiation explicit.

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 direct usage guidance: it tells users to use bsdd_search_classes for class-only searches, and it clarifies the IFC dictionary inclusion condition with includePreview. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use instructions relative to the sibling tool.

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