search_tools

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well. It discloses the side effect of registering tools into the session, the meaning of enable=false, the lazy-loading design, and the automatic tools/list_changed refresh after enabling. These are significant behavioral traits beyond the basic function.

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, front-loaded with the tool's purpose, and uses parallel 'With no query...' / 'With a query...' structure for instant comprehension. Every sentence carries useful information; the parenthetical on lazy loading is brief and justifies the design without bloating the text.

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 two-parameter meta-tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers both modes, side effects, and refresh behavior, but doesn't detail the structure of the 'compact group index' or the exact response format for matching tools, which an agent might need for downstream parsing.

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 provides only names and defaults with 0% description coverage, so the description must explain the parameters and does so thoroughly. It explains query semantics (no query vs. query examples) and enable semantics (default true, enable=false only reports), adding substantial meaning beyond the 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 states a specific verb ('Discover') and resource ('hidden raw Splitwise tools'), and clearly distinguishes the tool from action-oriented siblings by explaining it is a meta-tool for discovering/registering tools. The two operational modes (with and without query) are precisely described, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 gives clear usage context: no query returns a group index, a query returns matching tools with schemas and registers them, and enable=false reports only. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the sibling tools are not interchangeable with a discovery tool, so the guidance is sufficient.

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