search

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context the annotations do not: pure in-memory lookup with zero network or filesystem I/O, which tells the agent this call is cheap and cannot fail on external dependencies.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then segments usage into labeled 'When to use', 'Not for' and 'Behavior' clauses. Dense but every sentence carries routing or behavioral information; nothing is redundant with the name or annotations.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be re-explained. For a single-parameter discovery tool, the description covers purpose, alternatives, and I/O cost profile completely, leaving nothing an agent needs before calling it.

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% and the schema already documents the single 'query' parameter including the empty-equals-all behavior. The description still adds value by giving concrete example query values ('reconciliation', 'make a payment', 'pacs.008'), showing both natural-language and identifier-style inputs are accepted.

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) plus resource (ISO 20022 catalogue), the searchable facets (use-case, message type, keyword) with concrete examples, and the return shape (matching message types, their family, providing package). This clearly separates it from 'describe' and 'validate', which are named as the alternatives.

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?

Contains explicit 'When to use' (first step to discover which message type fits a workflow and which package supplies it) and explicit 'Not for' (field inspection and record checks once the type is known), naming 'describe' and 'validate' as the tools that cover those cases. No routing decision is left to inference.

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