search_proposals

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

The description does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects. The annotation openWorldHint gives a hint about openness, but adds minimal context. For a search tool, critical behaviors (e.g., empty results, pagination) are omitted.

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 extremely concise (one sentence, five words), which is efficient but comes at the cost of omitted details that could be included without excessive length. It is front-loaded but lacks substance.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (single parameter, no output schema) and rich sibling context, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, pagination, sorting, or how results relate to other tools. The annotation openWorldHint hints at breadth but remains vague.

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 sole parameter 'search' is a string with no description in the schema (0% coverage). The description only says 'by query', adding no detail about format, allowed values, or case sensitivity. It fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 verb ('search') and resource ('proposals') with a method ('by query'). It distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like get_proposal_templates or search_contact_people, though it lacks details on the scope of search (e.g., fields searched).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_proposal_directories or search_contact_organisations. The description does not specify prerequisites or when not to use it, leaving the agent without decision support.

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