search

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces 'read-only' and states 'No side effects' for dupecheck. It discloses behavior for each operation (e.g., returns previous contact detail or empty) with no contradictions.

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 bullet points and a clear opening sentence. While it is somewhat lengthy due to covering four operations, each section earns its place. A slight reduction in verbosity could improve conciseness.

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 10 parameters and no output schema, the description thoroughly explains all operations, parameter semantics, and behavioral traits. It compares with siblings and covers edge cases (e.g., dupecheck's side-effect-free nature), providing sufficient context for correct invocation.

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%, but the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter's role per operation (e.g., 'count, include_all for list', 'call/band/mode/dxcc/country/confirmed, include_all, max_records for search'). It adds semantic hints like normalizing mode and preferring dxcc over country.

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 starts with 'Search and list the log (read-only)' and enumerates four distinct operations (list, search, dupecheck, entity). It explicitly states the tool's scope and differentiates among operations, giving each a concise purpose.

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 explicit guidance on when to use each operation (e.g., 'Prefer dxcc over country', 'mode is normalized to CW/PH/DIG'). It also directly contrasts dupecheck with the sibling tool's calltab ('No side effects, unlike the log tool's calltab'), offering clear alternatives.

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