search_claude

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but provides minimal behavioral information. It mentions a timeout parameter with a default value, which hints at potential latency considerations, but doesn't describe what the tool actually returns, error conditions, rate limits, authentication needs, or any other behavioral characteristics. The description is too sparse for a tool that presumably makes API calls.

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 - just two brief sentences that state the tool's purpose and parameter information. It's front-loaded with the essential information. However, given the tool's likely complexity (interacting with an AI model), this brevity may be excessive rather than appropriately sized.

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 that presumably queries an AI model with no output schema provided, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what kind of response to expect, how results are formatted, whether there are usage limits, or any error handling. With no annotations and no output schema, the description should provide more context about the tool's behavior and outputs.

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 already fully documents both parameters. The description adds the timeout default value (90) which isn't in the schema, providing some marginal value. However, it doesn't add meaningful semantic context beyond what's already in the schema descriptions.

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 this is an 'Anthropic Claude assistant' which indicates it's a search/query tool for Claude AI. It specifies the verb 'search' in the name and the resource 'Claude' in the description. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like search_chatgpt or search_gemini beyond naming the specific AI model.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling search tools (search_bing_search, search_chatgpt, search_gemini, etc.). There's no indication of Claude's specific capabilities, strengths, or use cases that would help an agent choose between these similar tools.

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