Search Tools

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: default of ten matches, no hard cap on results, and that an empty query browses rather than errors. It does not describe result ordering stability or pagination beyond the limit, which keeps it from a 5.

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 key behavior and the sibling routing are front-loaded in the first sentences. The trailing Args section duplicates the schema descriptions nearly verbatim, which is redundant but not harmful.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. For a four-parameter search tool, the description covers intent, filtering, limits, browsing, and the follow-up call path, leaving nothing an agent needs missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: the family parameter is tied to list_tool_families slugs, writes is framed as mutations vs reads vs both, and limit is clarified as any positive integer or null for all matches. The Args block largely restates the schema, limiting the added 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Find enabled tools by intent') plus the ranking basis (names, descriptions, parameter schemas). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like describe_tool and call_read_tool, which the description itself names.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use describe_tool for the exact schema, then call_read_tool or call_write_tool. It also explains the empty-query browse case and that family slugs come from list_tool_families, leaving little to inference.

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