search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the result limit ('at most 25 matches'), advises narrowing the query, and explains the behavior of the kind parameter. It does not cover all edge cases, but the essential behavior is 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 compact and front-loaded. Every sentence adds useful information: purpose, result shape, use case, result limit, and kind semantics. There is no filler or repetition.

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 two-parameter search tool with an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers purpose, parameters, result limit, and return shape. The only minor gap is explicit guidance on when to choose this over sibling tools like list_databases.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the kind parameter well ('page', 'database', or omitted for both), but the query parameter is only implicitly described through 'Search titles.' More detail on matching behavior would be helpful, though the parameter is relatively self-explanatory.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Search titles of pages and databases shared with this integration') and gives the output shape. It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like list_databases or query_database by framing it as a lookup to find a URL to pass as a ref.

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 a clear use case: 'Use it to find the URL to pass as a ref.' It implies the tool is for discovery rather than data retrieval or mutation, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it.

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