search

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

The annotation says `readOnlyHint: true`, which is already declared. The description adds that it returns a list of object types and that ids can be passed to `fetch`, which is useful context beyond the annotation. It doesn't disclose any additional behavioral traits like pagination limits or whether it searches metadata only, but the annotation covers the safety profile. No contradiction.

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 sentences, no fluff. Clearly front-loaded with the purpose, and a second sentence provides actionable follow-up. Minimal and effective.

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 simplicity (1 param, no output schema, readOnly annotation), the description is complete enough. It explains what is returned and how to proceed. It might have been stronger if it clarified whether search is full-text or metadata-only, but that's a minor gap given the context signals. No need to detail return format as there's no output schema.

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?

With schema coverage at 100%, the description adds little beyond what the schema provides. The description says 'Search query' and the schema says the same. The description does add context that the query will match against content types (lessons, playbooks, recipes), which is slightly helpful. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states the tool searches 'StudioMeyer Academy course material' and returns 'a list of matching lessons, playbooks and recipes with ids you can pass to `fetch`'. This is a specific verb+resource with clear scope, and it also connects to the `fetch` sibling, differentiating it from related tools like `academy_search` which might be a Crunchbase search.

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 does not explicitly say when to use this tool vs alternatives like `academy_search`. However, it implies usage by stating it returns items with ids for `fetch`, serving as a discovery tool. There is no guidance on when not to use it (e.g., for fetching specific items directly). Adequate but not explicit.

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