search_management

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether the tool is read-only, any rate limits, authentication requirements, or possible side effects. The description only covers scope and rationale, leaving the agent without critical safety and behavioral context.

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 clear sections (PORTMANTEAU PATTERN RATIONALE, SEARCH SOURCES) and front-loads the purpose. While the portmanteau rationale is somewhat verbose, it is relevant to understanding the tool's design. No wasted sentences, but could be more concise.

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 complexity (13 actions, 19 parameters), the description provides a useful overview and source list, while detailed per-action requirements are supplied in the schema's action enum. The description, together with the rich schema, gives the agent enough context to select the tool and action, though it does not explicitly summarize the action list.

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 89%, so the schema already documents parameter meanings, requirements, and defaults. The description adds no parameter-level information, but the schema's rich detail justifies the baseline score of 3.

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 states the tool is a 'Comprehensive search management portmanteau tool for torrents and metadata' and explains it consolidates 11+ search operations into one interface. This clearly identifies the verb (search), the resource (torrents and metadata), and distinguishes it from sibling tools by its search focus.

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 implies usage by branding it as the single search tool ('Prevents tool explosion (11 tools → 1 tool)') and listing search sources, but does not explicitly specify when to use it vs alternatives or when not to use it. There are no named alternative tools with explicit exclusion criteria, so guidance is only implied.

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