Search tools

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description adds useful context about what the tool returns (including 'whether the tool mutates state') and hints that the tool list is not exhaustive. It does not introduce contradictions or disclose additional behaviors beyond the 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 concise sentences: purpose, output, and usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff or repetition.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly explains return fields. It also provides usage context and alternatives. Minor omission: it does not mention the default limit or pagination, though these are available in the input schema.

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 75%: query, domain, and mutating have descriptions, while limit does not. The description restates the keyword concept and return fields but does not add meaning beyond the schema. It mentions 'domain' as a return field but not as a filter parameter, which could be slightly ambiguous.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Find domain tools by keyword.' It also lists the exact return fields (name, domain, one-line summary, state mutation) and distinguishes itself from siblings by saying 'Use this instead of expecting every tool to be listed up front.'

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 clear context for when to use the tool: 'Use this instead of expecting every tool to be listed up front.' However, it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling tools describe_tool, confirm_action, or invoke_tool, nor does it state when not to use it.

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