Search design checklists

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

Annotations already provide readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive hints, covering safety. The description adds non-obvious behavioral context: results are ranked locally and include matching entry excerpts, which is valuable beyond what annotations convey. No contradictions detected.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the action, with no redundant or filler content. Every phrase adds value, specifying search scope and result behavior.

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 simple search tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers searchable fields, ranking, and excerpts, giving the agent a reasonable expectation of behavior. A minor gap is the lack of mention of when to use this tool versus alternatives, but that is more usage guidance.

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 schema covers query and category with descriptions (67% coverage). The description adds meaning by listing the searchable fields, which clarifies what the query targets and compensates for the moderate schema coverage. It does not address limit or category, but these are already described or self-evident.

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 searches checklists across multiple specific fields (names, descriptions, categories, items, suggestions, and flow steps), with the verb 'Search' and a well-defined resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_checklists and get_checklist by describing the search scope and local ranking behavior.

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 implies usage via the verb 'Search' but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives such as list_checklists or get_checklist. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided, so the guidance is only implicit.

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