dv_search

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

The annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to repeat safety details. It adds some context about bounded coverage, explicit unknowns, and draining buffered results, but these points remain abstract and do not fully explain the search 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 short and front-loads the search concept before the pagination instruction. It is not padded, though the first sentence is abstract and does not fully earn its place without more concrete detail.

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?

This is a complex search tool with a required request object containing many nested fields and 0% schema description coverage. The description mentions pagination and result qualifiers, and the output schema reduces the need to explain returns, but it remains far too incomplete about how to construct the search request.

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 must explain the parameters, but it mentions only next_cursor while the actual top-level parameter is cursor. It provides no explanation of the required request object or any of its many search fields such as query, filters, city, price bounds, and constraints.

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 gives a search verb and adds vague qualifiers about evidence, unknowns, and bounded coverage, but it never names the resource being searched or the domain. It also does not distinguish dv_search from siblings such as dv_parse_search, dv_filter_schema, or dv_get_listings.

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 only usage guidance is about passing next_cursor with the same query to drain buffered results. It gives no explicit when-to-use guidance versus alternatives and does not explain when this search tool is preferable to related sibling tools.

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