search_facts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one real trait: results are limited to "current" facts, implying stale/superseded facts are excluded. It says nothing about matching semantics (substring vs exact, case sensitivity), result caps or ranking, or required permissions — meaningful gaps for a search tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then the optional filter. Every clause carries information; 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and both parameters are addressed. For a two-parameter search, the only missing pieces an agent would want are result limits/pagination and kind vocabulary, which are secondary.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it establishes that the required parameter is free text matched against fact content and that `kind` is an optional filter with an example value ('competitor'). It stops short of enumerating valid kind values or describing match behavior, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ("Search current facts") plus the search field ("by text") and scope ("across all accounts"). Siblings (list_pending_actions, propose_action, get_account_context) are unrelated enough that no explicit differentiation is needed, so a 4 rather than 5.

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?

Usage is implied: reach for this when you need to find facts matching text rather than pull account context or pending actions. There is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of how this relates to get_account_context, and no statement about what to do if the query returns nothing.

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