Search Process

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

Annotations already mark the tool readOnly and idempotent. The description augments them with concrete behavioral details: case-insensitive partial matching, the scope ('all phases'), and the exact return contents (phase IDs, section names, matched lines). No contradictions with annotations.

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 short sentences that each carry distinct information: scope, matching rule, and return items. No filler or 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 read-only search with 2 parameters and an output schema, the description supplies all the behavioral context an agent needs to invoke it correctly: scope, match semantics, and return shape. Sibling differentiation is implicit but sufficient.

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 covers both parameters completely, including query's matching semantics and maxResults' bounds/default, so baseline 3 applies. The description doesn't introduce parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already documents.

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?

States a specific verb ('Search'), a precise resource ('all phases of the skill creation process'), and the matching modality ('by keyword'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings get_status and mark_progress, which are status/update operations.

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 makes the search use case clear: find matches within skill creation phases by keyword. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or give exclusion criteria (e.g., when to use get_status instead), but the intent is unambiguous for a read-only search tool. Lacks an explicit when/when-not statement, so not a 5.

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