search_entries

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. It discloses that filters are AND-combined and that ranking is applied, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, how pagination or limit works, or any other behavioral traits. The lack of annotation coverage makes this a significant gap.

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, concise sentence in German that front-loads the main verb and resource. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundant explanation.

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 8 parameters and no annotations, the description is too sparse. Although an output schema exists, the description does not address how filters interact with each other beyond AND-combination, what the default behavior is when no filters are set, or what 'file' refers to. The ranking behavior is mentioned but not elaborated.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only states 'all filters AND-combined', which gives a general sense but does not explain individual parameters like query, file, version, or limit. The parameter names in the schema provide some self-evidence, but the description adds minimal semantic value.

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 tool searches the structured store, with ranking and all filters AND-combined. This identifies the operation and resource, and implies a distinction from sibling tools like list_unreleased, though it does not name alternatives.

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 usage for filtered searches by mentioning 'all filters AND-combined', but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_unreleased or get_release. No exclusions or alternative tool names are provided.

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