search

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

With no annotations, the description details the fuzzy matching algorithm (rapidfuzz WRatio), field weighting (title ×2), and edge cases (empty list for blank query or empty index). It lacks mention of read-only nature but is otherwise transparent.

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 concise, with each sentence adding value. It starts with the primary purpose, then details matching, parameters, and return format, without redundancy.

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 complexity and available schema/documentation, the description covers purpose, parameters, behavior, and return values. Minor omission: no explicit statement that the tool is read-only, but overall complete for agent usage.

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 description explains both parameters beyond the schema: 'query' is exemplified with realistic queries, and 'top_k' is described with default value and purpose. Since schema coverage is 0%, this is essential and well-done.

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 it is a free-text search over the C++26 paper index, with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools (compiler_status, lookup_paper) by focusing on fuzzy search.

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 example queries, implying use for free-text search. It does not explicitly exclude cases or mention siblings, but the context makes its usage clear.

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