icf_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions returning a list with titles and relevance scores, which is useful. However, it does not disclose any side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. The description is adequate but minimal.

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 well-structured with a brief header, usage examples, and clearly labeled Args and Returns sections. It is concise without being overly terse, though the examples could be shortened.

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 simplicity (2 parameters, output schema exists), the description covers the essential information: what the tool does, how to use it, and what it returns. No major gaps are present.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so all parameter meaning comes from the description. It explains 'query' as search terms with examples and 'max_results' as maximum results with default 10. This adds significant value beyond the raw schema.

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 ICF classification by keywords or description. Examples like 'walking' and 'pain' make the purpose concrete. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like icf_browse_category.

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 advises using the tool when you know the functional area but not the specific code, providing implicit context. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it differs from alternatives like icf_lookup or icf_browse_category.

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