Search Requests

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: result ordering (newest first) and the fact that filters narrow candidates before similarity ranking. It omits pagination cost/limits and response shape, keeping it below 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?

Headers and numbered modes make it scannable and the core behavior is front-loaded. The examples section is somewhat redundant with the mode explanations and inflates length, preventing a 5.

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?

With 11 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers mode selection, filter semantics, ordering, and combination rules well. It does not explain pagination behavior or the shape of returned results, which matters for a search tool the agent must iterate on.

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 goes further by demonstrating concrete parameter combinations (e.g., combining query with endpoint_id, min_similarity with image_url) that the schema does not illustrate. It adds working syntax, though the 'Filter Options' bullets largely restate 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 states a specific verb and resource (search/filter/browse request history) and clearly enumerates three operating modes, which is more than most definitions offer. It stops short of a 5 because it never distinguishes itself from the sibling list_requests_by_endpoint, leaving the agent to infer which one to pick.

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?

It explicitly defines when each mode activates based on which parameters are supplied (query/image_url/video_url vs. none vs. both), which is genuine mode-selection guidance. However, it offers no when-not guidance and never routes to or away from sibling tools such as list_requests_by_endpoint.

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