search_tools

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the return shape (name + description + input schema), the relevance model ('top matching'), and the key behavior that no activation is needed. This is solid coverage for a read-only search tool, though it does not mention edge cases like no matches found.

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 compact and front-loaded: the search intent is in the first sentence, return behavior in the second, and the alternative activation path in the third. There is no redundant text or unnecessary detail.

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 two-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description gives the agent enough to know what to pass, what it will receive, and whether activation is required. It also mentions the key distinction from activate_category, making the tool self-sufficient.

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 input schema already documents both query and limit. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 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 ('specific tools') and explains how the search is expressed: by describing what you want to do. It also mentions that it returns ready-to-call tool definitions, which clearly separates it from the category-oriented sibling tools.

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 explicit routing for one-off use versus repeated use ('For repeated use of a group, call activate_category instead'). It implies when search_tools is appropriate rather than listing a category, but it does not explicitly contrast with list_tool_categories or get_active_tools.

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