search_engines

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

Despite no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: it performs a keyword-based search with stem-matching, returns a ranked list of engines with match scores, and is described as a fast pre-filter. It mentions that an empty query returns all engines and that the tool does not modify any state. No contradictions with annotations (none present).

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 front-loaded with the purpose, but is somewhat lengthy. However, every sentence earns its place by providing necessary details about usage, matching, and fallback. Minor verbosity prevents a perfect score, but it remains efficient.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity, the description is complete. It explains the input, return values (name, title, category, actions, match score), and how to proceed after calling it (use get_engine_schema). It also addresses edge cases (empty query, non-English queries) and integrates well with sibling tools. No output schema is needed as the return structure is described.

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 schema only defines a single optional 'query' parameter with no description, but the tool description provides extensive detail: it accepts English keywords or natural-language use cases, advises translation if needed, and explains the matching logic. This significantly adds meaning beyond the schema.

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 purpose: to find the right ReefAPI engine for a task by matching a query. It uses a specific verb ('find') and resource ('engine'), and provides examples to illustrate typical use cases. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by indicating it should be called first, and if the right engine is not found, to use get_catalog instead.

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 explicitly guides when to use the tool ('Call this FIRST') and when not to (if the engine isn't in results, use get_catalog). It also advises translating non-English queries into English keywords before using the tool, providing clear context for appropriate usage.

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