aleph_search

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

Annotations already declare this as read-only and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavior beyond annotations: it searches only datasets the user 'can read,' returns compact summaries rather than full entities, and suggests facets for clustering by countries or datasets.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: scope, entry-point role, result format, and facet guidance. The core action is front-loaded and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 a rich 100% schema-described parameter set, clear annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the essential workflow: search broadly, receive IDs, pass them to other tools. It could be slightly stronger by naming a sibling like aleph_get_entity for retrieving full details, but it is complete enough for an agent to use correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds mild parameter context by explaining that facets reveal country/dataset clustering, but it does not need to repeat query, limit, offset, or filter semantics already well documented in the schema.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Search entities ... across every Aleph dataset you can read.' It also positions itself as 'the main entry point' and clarifies that results are compact summaries with entity IDs, which distinguishes it from direct-fetch and similarity sibling tools.

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 clear context: this is the main entry point and should be used first, producing entity IDs to feed into other Aleph tools. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the entry-point workflow is clearly communicated.

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