emuia_search

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

Annotations are absent, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses a critical behavioral trait: the API returns 403 to unauthenticated requests. But it omits other behaviors such as rate limits, response format, or error handling. The caveat is valuable but not comprehensive.

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: two sentences. The first sentence states the purpose. The second provides a critical caveat. No redundant words, and the structure is front-loaded with the most important information.

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 has two parameters and no annotations, the description covers the purpose and a key behavioral issue. However, it does not discuss the output format (despite output schema existing), parameter constraints, or alternative tools. It is adequate but has notable gaps for full contextual completeness.

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 compensate. It partially explains the 'query' parameter by stating search is by name. However, it does not explain the 'limit' parameter or provide acceptable value formats, leaving much to inference.

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 the tool searches EMUiA (localities, streets, address points) by name, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by naming a specific dataset and referencing a sibling with a similar caveat.

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 notes the tool is currently unusable due to HTTP 403 from the backend API, which is a clear usage caveat. However, it does not provide guidance on when to use this tool compared to other geocoding/search siblings like geocode_nominatim or osm_overpass_query.

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