search_crs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context about search scope (covers Japanese JGD2011, global WGS84, Web Mercator) and searchable fields, but does not disclose critical behavioral traits such as pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens with no results. The description provides some operational context but leaves gaps in behavioral transparency.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the tool, the second specifies searchable fields, and the third provides coverage context. There is zero waste, and the structure efficiently conveys essential information.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, usage context, and parameter hints, but lacks details on output format, error handling, or behavioral constraints. With no output schema, the description could benefit from mentioning what results look like, but it adequately supports basic tool selection and 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 the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds marginal value by mentioning searchable fields (EPSG code, name, region name, prefecture name) and coverage examples, but does not provide additional syntax, format details, or usage examples beyond what the schema provides. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the verb ('Search') and resource ('EPSG Coordinate Reference Systems (CRS)'), and distinguishes from siblings by specifying keyword-based search functionality. It explicitly mentions what can be searched (EPSG code, name, region name, prefecture name) and provides coverage examples (JGD2011, WGS84, Web Mercator), making the purpose specific and differentiated.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool (searching CRS by keyword) and implies alternatives by mentioning coverage of specific CRS families, but does not explicitly name sibling tools like 'list_crs_by_region' or 'get_crs_detail' as alternatives. It gives guidance on searchable fields but lacks explicit when-not-to-use statements or direct comparisons to other tools.

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