search

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core search behavior and optional value matching, but omits details such as case sensitivity, result ordering, pagination behavior, or the shape of the response. For a search tool, this lacks important behavioral context.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant content. Every word earns its place, making it appropriately concise.

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?

The tool has 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description only conveys the basic purpose, leaving users to guess how limit, locale, and searchValues interact, and what the response contains. Given the minimal structured context, the description is incomplete.

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?

The input schema already provides descriptions for all 4 parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema—'optionally values' echoes the searchValues parameter description without providing new meaning.

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 uses a specific verb 'substring search' and a clear resource ('translation keys'), and even notes the optional scope expansion to values. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'keys' (likely listing all keys) and 'get_key' (exact lookup).

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 implies a search use case but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling tools like 'keys' or 'get_key', nor does it mention any exclusions. The intent is inferable from the name and phrasing, but there is no direct guidance.

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