changedetection_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds the underlying endpoint (GET /api/v1/search?q=), which aids understanding of the call, but says nothing about result limits, pagination, or truncation 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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action, with zero filler. The phrasing 'with optional tag and partial' is telegraphic but efficient.

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 simple, read-only 3-parameter search with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety, the essentials are present. What is missing is enough to matter: whether results are limited or paginated, and what the response contains (no output schema exists to cover this).

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% – each of q, tag, and partial is documented in the schema itself. The description merely restates that tag and partial are optional and adds no semantics (e.g., matching case, whether partial defaults to false) beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 watches') and the match fields ('by URL or title'), so the agent knows this is a lookup tool rather than a mutation. It does not explicitly contrast with changedetection_list_watches or changedetection_get_watch, leaving sibling discrimination to inference.

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 by 'search by URL or title' versus listing all watches, but no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives are given. An agent must infer that this is the right tool for text-based lookup.

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