search_standards

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, non-destructive, and open-world. The description adds source scope (NIST, IETF, W3C, ETSI) and mentions the 'body' filter, which is useful but not deeply behavioral. It does not disclose internal behavior like rate limits, pagination, or default ordering, but with output schema and annotations present, the extra burden is lower.

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 two concise sentences. The first sentence delivers the core purpose, and the second provides scope and a usage hint. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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, the description is adequate: it names the resource, search modes, source bodies, and the body filter. Combined with the exhaustive schema and output schema, it gives the agent enough to call the tool. A small gap is that it doesn't mention how results are ordered or that 'limit' caps the result count, though the schema covers the latter.

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 reinforces query semantics ('identifier, title, or free text') and explains the purpose of 'body', but these details are also present in the schema. No additional parameter meaning is added beyond what the schema already provides.

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's function: 'Search technical standards by identifier, title, or free text.' It also specifies the resource (technical standards) and the scope (NIST, IETF, W3C, ETSI), distinguishing it from sibling search tools like search_papers or search_books.

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 useful context: it searches four named source bodies and explicitly instructs how to restrict to one via the 'body' parameter. This provides clear guidance on parameter usage, though it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when *not* to use this tool.

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