search_tools

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower; the description still adds genuine value by disclosing the output shape (summaries, not schemas) and the paging behavior for empty queries. It does not mention result limits/truncation beyond the schema's own limit bounds, but the key behavioral traits are present.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, each carrying distinct information: purpose, return format, paging trick, and alternative tool. No redundant restatement of the name or annotations.

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 no output schema, the description correctly fills the gap by describing the return type as short summaries. For a three-parameter, zero-required discovery tool, that is nearly everything an agent needs; only an explicit pointer to get_tool_schema for expanding a result is missing.

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 only 33% (only query is described), so the description must compensate. It does so for the most important parameter by defining empty-query semantics ('page through all operations'), while limit and offset are self-explanatory with schema-declared defaults and bounds.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Find Langflow operations by keyword') and immediately contrasts the result type ('short summaries, not schemas'), which implicitly separates it from the sibling get_tool_schema. An agent can tell which tool to reach for without opening a schema.

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?

Gives two concrete usage modes: keyword search, and empty query to page through everything. It also redirects to get_api_schema and request_api for live endpoints, though those are not the declared siblings (get_tool_schema, call_tool), leaving the explicit hand-off to get_tool_schema for full schemas implied rather than stated.

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