search_tools

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 usefully discloses that the search is local/bundled with no scraping (implying no network side effects) and names the returned fields, but says nothing about result ranking, case sensitivity, or empty-result behavior.

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 tight sentence (with a parenthetical) front-loads the action and resource, then covers filtering and return shape. Every clause carries information; nothing is redundant or padded.

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?

With no output schema, the description helpfully enumerates the returned fields (name, summary, url, category) and clarifies the local/no-scraping data source. It stops short of describing error or empty-result behavior, but is otherwise sufficient for correct invocation.

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 three parameters (query, category, limit, including the 1-20 range and default) are already documented in the schema. The description only restates the filtering intent and adds no syntax or matching details beyond it, making the baseline 3 correct.

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 (the local Uwarp tool catalog), plus a clarifying constraint that it is a bundled JSON with no scraping. This is unambiguously distinct from siblings generate_palette and check_contrast, which are generators/validators rather than catalog lookups.

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 says to filter by query and optional category, which implies the usage pattern, but it never states when to use this tool or what the alternative would be. Since no sibling tool overlaps in purpose (a catalog search), the omission is minor but still leaves usage to inference.

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