search_ascii

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It states the action ('search') and outcome ('return matching art texts'), which implies a read-only operation. It does not explicitly mention side effects, but the nature of search suggests no state changes, so it is reasonably transparent.

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 with no superfluous information. It directly communicates the tool's purpose without redundancy.

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 simple context and the existence of sibling tools, the description adequately covers the essential information. It does not explain return format or edge cases, but the lack of an output schema makes that less critical. Overall, it provides enough context for a basic understanding.

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 input schema provides no descriptions, but the description mentions 'categoria or tags', giving some meaning to the parameters. However, it does not clarify whether both are optional, how they combine, or acceptable formats, so it adds partial value beyond the 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 that the tool searches entries by categoria or tags and returns matching art texts. It uses a specific verb ('search') and resource ('entries'), and it is distinct from sibling tools like get_ascii_art, random_ascii, and list_categories.

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 searching, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or explain when this tool should be preferred over others. It lacks guidance on context, such as whether to use it when looking for specific art texts.

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