search_properties

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: support for filtering by pattern, domain, or range and returning specific data fields. It does not mention pagination or limit behavior, but this is a minor gap for a read-only search tool.

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 two concise sentences that front-load the purpose and specify behavior without unnecessary verbiage. Every sentence adds value, covering the core function, available filters, and expected output.

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?

Despite having no output schema or annotations, the description adequately covers the tool's function, filters, and return structure. Minor details like limit behavior and repository context are partially covered by the schema and sibling tools, but the overall picture is sufficient for a search tool.

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 schema fully documents all five parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description only restates pattern, domain, and range as filters without adding new semantics or syntax beyond what the schema already provides.

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 'Find properties in the ontology' with a specific verb and resource. It also mentions filtering by pattern, domain, or range and return of property IRIs with labels, domains, and ranges, which defines scope and distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_classes and find_instances.

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 establishes clear context for finding properties, implicitly distinguishing it from sibling tools for classes and instances. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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