fsnb_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the tool performs full-text search using FTS5, but fails to disclose behaviors like read-only nature, performance, or authorization requirements. The description is adequate but lacks depth.

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 a single, well-formed sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose with relevant technical detail (FTS5). It is front-loaded and contains no extraneous information.

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?

The description omits details about the output format or fields, which is critical since no output schema is provided. It also assumes domain knowledge (GESN norms) without clarification. For a search tool, expected return structure should be mentioned.

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%, providing baseline clarity. The tool description adds context that the query searches within norms by name and composition, enhancing understanding beyond the schema's generic 'search query' label. This modest extra meaning earns a 4.

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 specifies a full-text search of GESN norms by name and composition, clearly identifying the action (search), resource (norms), and scope (by name and composition). This distinguishes it from siblings like fsnb_rate_get and fsnb_validate_code.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives. While the sibling tools have distinct purposes (get a rate, validate a code), usage guidelines are only implied and not articulated, leaving room for confusion.

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