search_systems

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that results are compact, that filters combine with AND, and that text matching is case-insensitive, but it is silent on pagination beyond the raw limit parameter, on permissions/auth needs, and on ordering or total-count behavior.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose and the get_system pointer in the first two sentences, then moves to filter semantics. The trailing list of localized status examples is longer than strictly necessary, but every sentence maps to a real behavioral detail.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by stating that results are compact with key fields and directing the agent to get_system for full detail. Combined with full schema coverage of all five optional parameters, this is close to complete, with the main remaining gap being result ordering and pagination semantics.

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 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter; the baseline is 3. The description adds genuine semantics that the schema lacks (AND combination across filters, case-insensitive text matching), but also names 'hosting type' as a filter when no such parameter exists, introducing mild noise rather than added clarity.

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 (search and filter) plus the resource (data systems) and enumerates the filterable fields, which is far more than a restated name. It differentiates from get_system explicitly ('Use get_system for full details'), but does not distinguish itself from sibling list_systems or systems_summary, so an agent cannot fully route between the three list-like tools on the description alone.

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?

Gives a clear context — multi-criteria filtering with AND logic — and names the alternative tool for full-record retrieval. It stops short of stating when to prefer this over list_systems or systems_summary, and gives no guidance on the limit parameter or when to request all results.

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