searchPrompts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It states that fuzzy search returns a list of matching prompt IDs and their content, implying a read-only operation. It adds useful context about fuzzy matching and output contents, though it does not explicitly declare safety (e.g., read-only) or address auth/rate limits, which are less critical for a search tool.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and every sentence adds value. It is concise without being under-specified.

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 covers the essential aspects: purpose, return values (list of IDs and content), and discovery context. With no output schema, it adequately describes the result. It does not mention sorting or empty-result behavior, but these are not critical for a basic search.

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%; both 'query' and 'limit' have clear descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Fuzzy search the available Teleprompter prompts by text.' It specifically identifies the resource (Teleprompter prompts) and the action (fuzzy search), and distinguishes itself from siblings like listPrompts by emphasizing fuzzy text discovery rather than listing all prompts.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: 'so the user can discover prompts even if they do not know the exact tag or ID.' This implies it is for discovery when exact identifiers are unknown, but it does not explicitly name alternatives like 'use listPrompts for complete listing' or 'use usePrompt for exact ID lookup.'

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