Search things

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

The description discloses useful behavioral traits beyond the schema: returns up to `limit` matches, newest first, and returns an empty list when nothing matches (not an error). However, with no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it doesn't mention whether the operation is read-only, whether results are paginated beyond the limit, or any authentication requirements. The disclosed behaviors are valuable but not exhaustive.

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?

Three sentences with zero waste. The core purpose is front-loaded, and each sentence adds distinct information: what it searches, when to use it, and key behavioral details. No redundancy with the schema.

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 simple 2-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential behaviors: result ordering, limit semantics, and empty-result handling. It doesn't describe the return format, but with no output schema and a simple search tool, the description is largely complete. The only minor gap is not explicitly stating the operation is read-only, but the description's wording implies a non-destructive search.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds the meaning of `limit` (up to `limit` matches) and the behavior of an empty result, but doesn't add syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('THING') and clarifies it is free-text query-based. It distinguishes the tool's purpose by explaining what user intents it serves ('what THINGs exist', 'asks about a THING by name'), though it doesn't name sibling tools because none are provided.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: when the user asks what THINGs exist or asks about a THING by name. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but with no sibling tools provided, the usage context is reasonably complete.

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