list_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds 'Read' which aligns with these but provides no further behavioral insight such as pagination, authentication requirements, or what the response contains. It essentially repeats the endpoint and parameter names without enriching the safety or behavior picture 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?

The description is extremely short and front-loaded with 'Read Search.' but then degenerates into a bare list of parameter names. While it is concise, the brevity stems from under-specification rather than efficient communication. The structure is a simple list, but it lacks narrative or explanatory value.

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?

With 6 parameters and a search operation, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the search does, what results are returned, or how the parameters interact. Although an output schema exists, the overall purpose and usage context are missing, making it inadequate for an agent to correctly invoke the tool without external knowledge.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists each parameter with a redundant 'Query parameter.' suffix, which restates the name without explaining semantics (e.g., what query filters on, how limit/offset affect results, what categories and indexer_ids represent). The description provides no meaningful meaning beyond the schema's property names.

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 says 'Read Search.' and provides an endpoint, but 'Search' is generic and doesn't clarify what kind of search or what resource it operates on. It does not distinguish from siblings like list_history or list_indexer, which also list data. The purpose is ambiguous beyond being a read operation for 'search'.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description simply lists parameters without any context about the intended use case, prerequisites, or conditions under which to select this tool over others.

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