search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false, destructiveHint=false. The description reinforces with 'pure in-memory lookup; read-only and idempotent with zero network or filesystem I/O,' which adds specificity (no I/O) beyond the boolean hints but largely restates the annotation profile. It also discloses the return shape (matching message types, family, providing package).

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-loaded with purpose, then cleanly sectioned into When to use / When NOT to use / Behavior. Slightly verbose in the Behavior sentence, which partially duplicates annotations, but every clause remains useful.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be re-explained, and the description still summarizes them succinctly. With purpose, routing guidance, and behavioral notes combined, an agent has everything needed to invoke 'search' correctly as a discovery step.

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% and the single 'query' param is documented in-schema (including the empty-string default). The description adds the example keyword classes ("reconciliation", "make a payment", "pacs.008") which help the agent phrase queries, but does not extend beyond that. 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?

States a specific verb (Search) and resource (ISO 20022 catalogue) and enumerates query dimensions (use-case, message type, keyword) with concrete examples. Distinguishes itself from siblings by naming 'describe' and 'validate' as the tools for post-discovery inspection.

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?

Explicit 'When to use' (first step to discover the fitting message type and backing package) and 'When NOT to use' (field inspection or XML validation - use 'describe' or 'validate' instead). Both the triggering condition and named alternatives are present.

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