Search Any Topic

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true. The description adds value by stating that searches are normalized to fetch 2026 content and that the current year is 2026, which is not in annotations. It also mentions auto-detection from project context. No contradictions with 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?

The description is well-structured with a clear opening sentence, a bullet-point list of use cases, and examples. It is somewhat lengthy but every sentence adds value. It is front-loaded with the core statement. Could be slightly more concise, but overall effective.

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 that the tool has no output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, usage, parameters, and behavioral notes (e.g., year normalization). It provides ample examples for a general search tool. The annotations further enrich the context. The description is complete for the tool's complexity.

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 tokens are described). The description adds significant examples and usage context for the query parameter, and mentions the default token count (8000) which is not in the schema description. Since baseline is 3 due to high coverage, the added value raises it to 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 clearly states the tool is for searching any topic, with a specific verb ('Search'), resource ('any topic'), and behavior (returns latest best practices/docs/guidance). The many examples and explicit mention that no library name is needed distinguish it from sibling tools like gt_audit or gt_best_practices, which are more specialized.

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 extensive examples of when to use the tool across many domains (libraries, standards, security, etc.) and explicitly says 'any topic' and 'just ask'. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to siblings, but the context makes it clear that this is a general-purpose search tool, while siblings are more specific (e.g., gt_best_practices for best practices). This is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.

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