search-charts

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full burden for behavioral disclosure. It accurately describes the search behavior (case-insensitive partial matching) and specifies return fields (UUID, name, space, description). It does not mention potential limits like pagination or result count, but for a search tool of this simplicity, the transparency is largely sufficient.

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 well-structured and concise: a clear first sentence, bullet points for matching fields and return fields, and separate sections for usage guidance and differentiation. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers input, behavior, and output fields. It does not mention ordering or pagination, but this is acceptable for most use cases. The context from sibling tools supports 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?

The input schema already provides a detailed description of the 'search_term' parameter with an example. The tool description reinforces the case-insensitive and partial matching behavior but does not add substantial new meaning beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3.

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 for charts by name or description with case-insensitive partial matching. It explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool 'list-charts' by noting that this tool searches both name and description, while the other only filters by name.

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 includes a dedicated 'When to use' section with three specific scenarios and a 'Difference from list-charts' section, providing clear guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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