search_registers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: the search scope (all peripherals and registers), matching method (case-insensitive substring), and result limits (up to 10 matches with specific fields). However, it lacks details on error handling, performance expectations, or pagination for results beyond 10.

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 front-loaded with the core functionality in the first sentence and follows with usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place by adding distinct value—no redundant or vague phrasing. It's appropriately sized for a tool with two parameters and clear purpose.

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's moderate complexity (search function with two parameters) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, usage, and key behaviors. However, without an output schema, it doesn't detail the structure of returned matches (e.g., field types or ordering), leaving a minor gap in full context.

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 schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning the case-insensitive substring match for the query parameter, but it doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or examples. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('Search across all peripherals and registers'), the resource ('in an SVD file'), and the method ('case-insensitive substring match'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings by emphasizing its cross-peripheral search capability, unlike tools that might focus on specific peripherals or registers.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'when you know part of a register name but not which peripheral it belongs to.' This provides clear guidance on its intended context and distinguishes it from alternatives like list_peripherals or lookup_register, which might be used for different scenarios.

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