Search Claims

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not state that this is a read-only operation, how results are paginated or ordered, what happens when no filter is supplied, or the default/limit behavior (limit defaults to 20, max 100 per schema but unexplained).

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, listing the available modes compactly. Slightly under-specified rather than verbose, but nothing is wasted.

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 5-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the main search axes but omits pagination, default behavior, filter-combination rules, and return shape. Adequate as a minimum viable definition but with clear gaps.

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 all five parameters are already documented in the schema, which sets the baseline at 3. The description maps loosely onto query, confidenceLevel, and threadId but adds no format, combination, or ordering semantics beyond what the schema states.

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 and resource ('Search for claims') plus the scope ('across research jobs'). It distinguishes the three search modes but does not differentiate itself from siblings like get_claim_evidence or get_results, which an agent could easily confuse with a claims-search tool.

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 three modes imply usage ('search by text content, filter by confidence level, or list all claims for a thread'), so an agent can infer intent from each mode. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement about combining filters, and no routing to the alternative claim/evidence tools.

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