search_applications

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It confirms a read-only search with case-insensitive substring matching and discloses the returned fields (id, name, category, risk), but says nothing about permissions, result caps, or pagination beyond the schema's limit default.

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?

Two tight sentences: the search mechanics and examples come first, then the return shape. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy.

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 4-param read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers matching behavior, parameter combination, and the returned fields. It lacks any note on default/no-filter behavior or result-size implications, which would complete the picture.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds value beyond the schema by stating that name matching is case-insensitive and 'contains', and that query and category can be combined ('and/or'). vdom and limit semantics remain schema-only.

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?

States a specific verb (search) and resource (application-control signatures), plus match modes (contains, case-insensitive) and examples. It reads as a filtered-list tool distinct from list_app_categories or list_app_control_profiles, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 examples (query=YouTube, category=P2P) imply when the tool is useful, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no routing to alternatives such as list_app_categories for browsing the full category set.

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