tc_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds behavioral insights: return format '{count, results}', that results are 'raw search results from the API', and that omitting project_id means searching 'all regions'. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent anticipate output and regional behavior.

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 well-structured, with a one-sentence overview followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value and there is no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the parameter details are easy to scan.

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 search tool with optional project scoping and multi-region behavior, the description is complete. It explains the input semantics, return format, and regional behavior. The output schema is present, so return value details are adequately covered. With safe/hint annotations, no additional behavioral disclosure is needed.

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 carries the full burden. It explains both parameters: 'query' as 'Search text (e.g. a file name or keyword)' and 'project_id' as an optional limiter with performance and scope implications. This adds meaning well beyond the bare schema names and types.

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 Trimble Connect for files, folders, todos etc. by text.' This provides a specific verb ('Search'), a resource ('Trimble Connect'), and a scope (files, folders, todos, etc. by text). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like tc_get_file or tc_list_folder by emphasizing text-based search across multiple item types.

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 practical usage guidance for the optional project_id parameter: 'limit the search to one project (faster, searches only that project's region). Omit to search all regions.' This tells when to include or omit the parameter and explains the trade-off, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives among sibling tools. Still, it gives clear context for effective use.

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