oratilo_search

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 that results are ranked matches with page links and snippets, and that it searches across a library index (implying it's read-only). It doesn't disclose pagination behavior, rate limits, or what 'full text search' means regarding partial matches, but the read-only nature is reasonably implied by the search-then-lookup pattern.

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?

Two sentences, zero wasted words. The first sentence states purpose and when to use, the second describes the return format and follow-up action. Extremely efficient and front-loaded.

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 search tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is fairly complete: it explains the purpose, return format (ranked matches with page links and snippets), and directs follow-up. It could add what fields each result contains or note that 'full text of one' via lookup implies snippets come first, but it's adequate for a search-with-lookup sibling pattern.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all three parameters (query, lang, limit). The description mentions searching by topic/phrase/person/company which maps to query usage, and notes the AND-ed multi-word behavior is in the schema. The description adds minor value by framing what query types are useful but doesn't go much 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?

Description uses a specific verb (Search) with a specific resource (full text of oratilo summaries) and enumerates search dimensions (topic, phrase, person, company). It clearly distinguishes from the sibling tool by explaining when this one is appropriate (when you do not have a specific video URL) and directs follow-up to oratilo_lookup for full text of one result.

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 context on when to use this tool ('when you do not have a specific video URL but want to know what the library covers') and directs users to oratilo_lookup for full text retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to NOT use this tool or contrast with the sibling for the lookup use case.

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